tracking healthy waters protections in the hesapeake ay ...€¦ · watershed protection. in 2008...
TRANSCRIPT
Tracking Healthy Waters Protections
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Dana Gilbert
Peter Kyle
Andrew McCoy
December 2012
DE-
A Report by
Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy
at The College of William & Mary
Prepared for The Nature Conservancy
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 1 }
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Mark Bryer and Nicole Rovner, The Nature Conservancy
Professor Sarah L. Stafford, College of William & Mary, Course Instructor & Faculty Advisor
Brian Spry, College of William & Mary, Undergraduate Research Assistant
We also thank the local government staff across Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia who
graciously participated in our survey.
PHOTOGRAPHY CREDITS
Cover Page:
Top Photo: Nicholas A. Tonelli via Flickr (Creative Commons)
Bottom Photo: Jeff Smallwood via Flickr (Creative Commons)
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 2 }
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ 3
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................................. 5
SURVEY METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................ 7
CATEGORIZATION OF POLICIES .............................................................................................................................. 11
INTERSTATE TRENDS .............................................................................................................................................. 12
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................... 12
ZONING ORDINANCES .......................................................................................................................................... 16
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 19
NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION ................................................................................................................... 22
COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIPS ........................................................................................................................... 25
INTRASTATE TRENDS .............................................................................................................................................. 26
MARYLAND ........................................................................................................................................................... 26
PENNSYLVANIA..................................................................................................................................................... 30
VIRGINIA ............................................................................................................................................................... 33
CORRELATION AND REGRESSION ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 36
DATA DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................. 36
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................... 37
MOVING FORWARD ................................................................................................................................................. 42
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................. 45
APPENDIX I: HEALTHY WATERSHEDS SURVEY .................................................................................................. 46
APPENDIX II: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES OF LOCALITIES ................................................................................... 48
APPENDIX III: SURVEY RESPONSE SUMMARIES ................................................................................................. 51
APPENDIX IV: DATA OUTPUT TABLES ............................................................................................................... 67
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................ 70
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 3 }
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A team of graduate students in the Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy at the
College of William & Mary surveyed local government staff in 23 Chesapeake Bay
Watershed localities in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Four categories of watershed
protection tools were tested across all states: watershed management, zoning ordinances,
development management, and natural resources protection. On average, localities utilized
less than half of the policies categorized as watershed management and development
management. Development management and natural resources protection policies were
almost universally used. Local policies varied in their level of stringency and enforcement.
A number of state regulations mandated the use of certain policies, and localities differed
widely in their use of local regulatory authority to have more restrictive policies. The most
successful localities blended mandates with incentives and advisory services, while gearing
action and awareness specifically toward watershed protection.
Each state differed in a number of ways concerning their approach to protecting healthy
watersheds. Maryland, characterized by a high amount of state control, mandates a
number of protective regulations regarding watershed health. These state standards and
regulations are largely uniform and do not allow sufficient flexibility for individual
localities facing divergent pressures. Pennsylvania exercises more decentralized control
over the localities. Counties in Pennsylvania do not engage in the same regulatory design
process, leaving this to municipalities and engaging in an oversight role. Similar to
Maryland, Virginia exercises a high degree of state control over watershed protection, but
the state does allow for more flexibility than Maryland, placing different requirements on
developed and undeveloped localities.
A basic statistical analysis looking at potential relationships between the various tools and
watershed health demonstrated that only two categories appeared to have a significant
relationship with watershed health. Development management policies and zoning
ordinances showed statistically significant correlations with the proportion of “good” or
“excellent” quality samples within a county. Given the intent of this project as a pilot study,
the sample size was too small to gain more than a cursory understanding of the interstate
and intrastate trends. Future studies should focus on expanding the sample size and
modifying the survey methodology to capture a greater level of detail.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 4 }
INTRODUCTION
Our client, The Nature Conservancy, plays a vital role in environmental issues throughout
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and beyond. As one of the largest environmental non-
profit organizations in the world with over one million members, TNC works
internationally to protect and restore critical natural resources. Within the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed, our client actively works on or supports conservation easements, land
acquisition for conservation, biological monitoring and assessments, sustainable forestry
and water management, and various restoration efforts. Given our client’s focus on
Chesapeake Bay restoration, the protection of healthy watersheds within the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed parallels TNC’s mission and goals.
Our client's relationship with the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), a regional partnership
coordinating Chesapeake Bay restoration, also enabled us to receive additional guidance
and access to information on watershed research and data. CBP contains six goal
implementation teams, including the Maintain Healthy Watersheds Goal Implementation
Team (GIT4). The GIT4 seeks to protect local watersheds with high levels of water quality
from degrading by collaborating to address and improve the various scientific, policy, and
management issues associated with watershed protection. Both TNC and CBP’s GIT4 have
expressed a need for a better understanding of the types of policymaking occurring at the
local level to protect healthy watersheds. Specifically, our client requested that our team
conduct a pilot study to document what watershed protection policies local governments
use and to provide recommendations for tracking the local-level protection of healthy
watersheds over time.
While various projects and initiatives designed to restore impaired watersheds provide an
array of benefits to private citizens, businesses, and governments, watershed restoration
remains costlier compared to healthy watershed protection. Given the preventative nature
of protecting healthy watersheds, governments would need to invest in fewer types of
public infrastructure, such as water treatment facilities, and can thereby reduce costs. In
addition to necessitating fewer public infrastructure expenditures, maintaining healthy
watersheds can also minimize the impacts of flooding, reduce sedimentation and erosion
issues, and assist with improving groundwater recharge capacity.1 Furthermore, several
studies indicate that proximity to open green space increases the property values of
residential homes. Finally, relatively unpolluted and pristine waters must exist in order for
successful tourism and recreational activities such as fishing and boating to take root and
thrive within a locality or region.
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Healthy Watersheds News,” EPA Healthy Watersheds, Summer 2012, water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/watershed/upload/hwnews12-2.pdf.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 5 }
LITERATURE REVIEW
A number of survey and research projects have focused on the actions of local communities
and governments to restore watershed health. A substantially more limited number of
reports have assessed how local-level activities support the protection and maintenance of
watersheds with relatively high water quality. Prior to initiating our survey, we reviewed
several relevant studies and reports analyzing various components of watershed
protection. In particular, we focused on publications that either addressed watershed
policy at the local level or recommended certain policy and management strategies for
watershed protection.
In 2008 the Center for Watershed Protection published the results of a survey containing
questions based on the eight tools of watershed protection. Survey respondents included
local government staff in 73 coastal plain communities across Alabama, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. Most often, survey respondents indicated a lack of funding
and limited staff resources as the primary reasons for the limited adoption of watershed
protection tools. Furthermore, the researchers concluded that the local governments were
primarily meeting state and federal regulations but not able to gather resources for
additional initiatives.2
In another report, three non-profit organizations (Friends of the Rappahannock, James
River Association, and Potomac Conservancy) based in Virginia received funding from the
Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund to assess how Low Impact Development (LID) practices
impact stormwater runoff.3 The researchers, in collaboration with graduate students in
urban planning and environmental policy programs at three Virginia universities, analyzed
the local codes and ordinances of 41 counties and independent cities within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed's non-tidal areas. The researchers modified the Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation's Checklist for Advisory Review of Local
Ordinances4 to uniformly gather data on LID principles.
Ultimately the research team made several findings relevant to our report. First, at least
one locality established codes or ordinances for all 76 of the LID principles, thereby
indicating that the integration of LID principles into local regulations is possible. Second,
2 Karen Cappiella, Lauren Lasher, Neely Law, and Chris Swann, Watershed Planning Needs Survey of Coastal Plain Communities (Technical memorandum, Center for Watershed Protection, 2008), 22. 3 Friends of the Rappahannock, James River Association, Potomac Conservancy, Promoting Low Impact Development in Virginia: A Review and Assessment of Nontidal County Codes and Ordinances (2012). 4 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Checklist for Advisory Review of Local Ordinances (Word document, 2009), http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/stormwater_management/documents/checklist_adv.doc.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 6 }
the most substantial gap among localities for protecting water quality entailed the
protection of trees and vegetation. Third, localities receiving low scores (indicating fewer
numbers of LID principles) were typically rural and under less development pressure.5
Currently the VDCR's Division of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance (DCBLA), as part of
Phase III of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, provides a checklist of local ordinances
to assess whether localities adequately meet the performance criteria. DCBLA then
conducts advisory reviews using the checklist to verify that the localities’ ordinances
comply with the criteria. The compliance evaluations for localities occur approximately
every five years. In the “Moving Forward” section of our report, we discuss DCBLA’s
checklist and its potential utility for future research.
In 2011 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released its Healthy Watersheds
Initiative, which provided a framework for how the agency plans to protect healthy waters.
EPA's framework and action plan contains several focus areas for state involvement,
including the development of various healthy watershed assessments, green infrastructure
assessments, outreach programs, and healthy watershed protection plans.6 Ultimately the
plan outlines the need for state programs that assess water quality and provide watershed
protection but also the need for land use regulations and watershed planning at the local
government level. Several state programs (e.g. Maryland’s GreenPrint Program,
Pennsylvania’s Healthy Waters Initiative, and Virginia's Healthy Waters Initiative) have
emerged to promote the conservation of ecologically valuable, healthy lands and
watersheds. The recent flurry of activity among federal and state governments regarding
the protection of healthy watersheds will hopefully induce a “trickle down” effect for local
governments in the near future.
5 Ibid, 16. 6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Healthy Watersheds Initiative: National Framework and Action Plan, 2011, water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/watershed/upload/hwi_action_plan.pdf.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 7 }
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
We refined a set of survey questions initially developed in July 2012 in order to capture as
much detail from respondents as possible. We also requested and received feedback from
Chesapeake Bay Program GIT4 members, who had a diverse set of skills and experiences
relating to watershed policy. The final list of survey questions consisted of 9 questions,
including 2 questions which listed 11 planning and zoning tools and 9 regulatory and
management programs to determine which of the listed items each locality had adopted or
implemented. Appendix I contains the complete list of survey questions used for this
report.
Figure 1. Map of Areas Meeting State Definitions for Healthy Watersheds7
7 Chesapeake Bay Program staff provided this data via ChesapeakeStat, a website created by CBP that contains spatial data viewers and various data sets. ChesapeakeStat can be accessed at http://stat.chesapeakebay.net.
M A R Y L A N D :
High Priority Water Quality Protection Watersheds
Priority Cold Water Conservation Areas
Sentinel Site Watersheds
Tier II Catchments P E N N S Y L V A N I A :
Exceptional Value (Designed & Existing Use) High Quality (Designed & Existing Use)
V I R G I N I A :
INSTAR Healthy Watersheds
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 8 }
Given the intentional open-endedness of the questions, we conducted the survey via
telephone to best extract detailed, comprehensive answers from the respondents. We also
anticipated that a telephone survey would induce additional comments from the
respondents, given the free-flowing nature of telephone conversations. Typically,
respondents spent 30-45 minutes answering the survey, with some respondents spending
upwards of 90 minutes.
Due to the time constraints associated with the project and our client’s requests, we
focused on a sample of 10 localities per state, for a total of 30 localities. Using GIS data
provided by the Chesapeake Bay Program, we selected localities with high concentrations
of healthy watersheds. Where possible, we attempted to include a mix of localities with
rural, suburban, and urban characteristics. The localities surveyed, as well as their general
demographic profiles, are listed in Appendix II. Each state differs in its use of criteria for
defining healthy watersheds, and Figure 1 shows the CBP data mapping where healthy
watersheds exist, according to state definitions.
Though all three states utilize some type of biological health assessment to determine
watershed health, Maryland uses the most multifaceted system. Maryland has a number of
classifications for healthy watersheds and does not explicitly categorize its watersheds in
broad “good” and “excellent” or “high quality” and “exceptional value” terms, as do Virginia
and Pennsylvania, respectively. As shown in Figure 1, high priority water quality
protection watersheds, areas with priority cold water conservation areas, Sentinel Site
watersheds, and/or Tier II catchments were chosen as candidates for survey participation.
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources conducts the Maryland Biological Stream
Survey (MBSS) annually on a statewide basis. Using data collected from the MBSS,
watershed health is assessed and certain watersheds fall into classifications for high
quality, such as sentinel site and stronghold watersheds. Used for long-term monitoring,
sentinel sites are healthy, non-tidal watersheds that have minimal disturbance. Stronghold
watersheds were also factored into the selection of localities but were not included in the
map. Stronghold watersheds represent the areas with the highest numbers of rare,
threatened, or endangered aquatic species. These watersheds are deemed most important
to protecting aquatic biodiversity.8 Using MBSS data, Maryland classifies high-quality, Tier
II waters in order to provide additional protection to Tier II waters, under the state
antidegradation policy. States must adopt antidegradation policies to protect and maintain
high quality waters, though states have varied in their implementation of these policies.
8 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, “Watersheds of Greatest Importance for the Preservation of Maryland’s Aquatic Biodiversity,” www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pdfs/StrongholdFactSheet.pdf.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 9 }
Tier II catchments specfically refer to the catchments of streams that possess biological or
chemical traits exceeding the minimal water quality requirements of Tier I catchments.9
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) conducts stream
assessments to determine water quality and classify streams of high quality. Within
Pennsylvania the state code provides criteria for surface waters to meet in order to become
classified as High Quality (HQ) or Exceptional Value (EV). Surface waters are further
classified based on existing use and designated use. The term "existing use" refers to the
current or past condition of a stream, whereas "designated use" refers to the attainable
condition of a stream.10 If a stream's existing use meets the requirements for High Quality
or Exceptional Value classification, municipalities (often with local government support).
HQ and EV designated streams receive the highest levels of support and protection from
PDEP. Municipalities can petition PDEP to update its designated use in the case of a
stream's existing use surpassing its current designated use. In this scenario, a stream is not
getting the level of protection it should receive.11 Figure 1 shows those waters meeting the
HQ or EV classifications.
Similar to the MBSS, the Interactive Stream Assessment Resource (INSTAR) developed by
the Center for Environmental Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, uses biological
stream data to provide a modified Index of Biotic Integrity (mIBI) score and Virtual Stream
Assessment (VSA) and score for each studied stream.12 INSTAR compiles water quality
data collected by state agencies, local governments, volunteers, and academic institutions,
provided the data comply with certain sampling criteria. The INSTAR healthy watersheds,
as indicated in Figure 1, represent the watershed areas surrounding Healthy Waters
INSTAR sites. A small number of surveyed Virginia localities indicated concerns with
INSTAR’s methodology or were simply unaware of INSTAR.
9 Maryland Department of the Environment, "Water Quality Standards," www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/Water%20Quality%20Standards/Pages/programs/waterprograms/tmdl/wqstandards/index.aspx. 10 Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Protecting Streams in Pennsylvania: A Resource for Municipal Officials, 2007, 6. 11 Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future, Stream Redesignation Handbook, 2009, 29. 12 Jennifer Ciminelli et al. Healthy Waters. Report, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, 7.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 10 }
Figure 2. Map of Surveyed Localities
We began contacting potential localities on October 19, 2012, and continued conducting
surveys through November 20, 2012. We concluded our data collection process with 23
participating localities for a response rate of 77%. Although a total of 25 localities agreed
to participate in the survey, 1 locality provided incomplete responses via e-mail, due to
time constraints; the other locality did not have any regulatory authority, as the county
administered regulations for the town. Figure 2 highlights the eight Maryland localities
(seven counties and one town), eight Pennsylvania counties, and seven Virginia counties
who participated in and completed the survey.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 11 }
CATEGORIZATION OF POLICIES
When creating the survey, we divided the list of local policies into two categories: planning
and zoning tools and regulatory and management programs. In order to provide a more
compelling qualitative and statistical analysis of the individual policies, we placed the
policies into four new categories: watershed management, zoning ordinances, development
management, and natural resources protection.
Table 1. Categorization of Policies
Watershed
Management
Zoning
Ordinances
Development
Management
Natural
Resources
Protection
GIS-based
Watershed
Inventory
Cluster
Development
Ordinance
Infill and
Community
Redevelopment
Critical Area or
Special
Protection of
Lands Adjacent
to Water Bodies
Needs and
Capabilities
Assessment
Floating Zones Low-Impact
Development
Standards
Landowner
Stewardship
Programs
Water Quality
Monitoring and
Assessment
Impervious
Cover Limits
Transfer of
Development
Rights
Long-term
Conservation
Programs
TMDL
Implementation/
Monitoring Plan
Overlay/ Special
Use Zoning
Districts
Urban Growth
Boundaries
Voluntary Best
Management
Practices
Watershed
Management
Plan
Riparian Buffer
Limits
Watershed-Based
Zoning
Steep Slope
Ordinance
Although the survey addresses whether a locality contains guidance or regulations on
pesticide and fertilizer use, or whether it has an emergency spill response plan, we did not
include them in the categorization. Given their overwhelming use among localities and
loose, redundant ties with watershed protection, we chose to omit these two policies from
the overall categorization. Both pesticide and fertilizer use and emergency spills are
largely regulated at the state and federal level with minimal to no variation among the
surveyed localities. In several instances, survey respondents indicated other governmental
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 12 }
agencies that operate educational and advocacy programs regarding fertilizer or pesticide
use. For example, several of Pennsylvania's conservation districts and Virginia's soil and
water conservation districts were cited for their work locally to minimize the improper use
of fertilizers and pesticides both in residential and agricultural areas.
INTERSTATE TRENDS
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Watershed management policies were used by 19 of the 23 responding localities. The town
contacted in Maryland did not have the authority to use the watershed management tools
as the county claimed that role. The three remaining localities without watershed
management tools in place were predominantly rural and decentralized with protected
state forests and historic sites. These localities often cited a lack of adequate resources at
the local government level which made the complete implementation of state watershed
management requirements difficult.
Watershed management plans were in place for 11 counties and took 2 main approaches
for watershed management. One approach involved making individual watershed
management plans for each watershed within the locality. This approach usually involved
one or more watershed management tools which applied specifically to an individual
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
GIS-based WatershedInventory
Needs andCapabilitiesAssessment
Water QualityMonitoring and
Assessment
WatershedManagement Plan
Watershed-BasedZoning
Per
cen
t o
f Lo
calit
ies
Figure 3. Watershed Management
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 13 }
watershed. The other approach entailed a countywide plan that focused more on general
steps the county should take to protect the health of all watersheds. Three of the localities
used the first approach, 4 localities used the second approach, 4 localities used both
approaches, and the final locality had a watershed management plan in progress with a
projected completion date in 2013.
Only 13% of responding localities indicated the use of watershed-based zoning.
Watershed-based zoning is essentially a planning process where the local government
incorporates numerous factors (e.g. impervious surface area, water quality, and current
land use) into land use and development decisions. A local government will designate
certain watersheds or subwatersheds as targets for potential development as a way to
minimize future development in watersheds deemed more critical.13
Surprisingly, 61% of localities indicated the use of a type of GIS-based watershed inventory.
The degree to which GIS data was utilized for planning and development predictably varied
widely. Similar to the findings of the Center for Watershed Protection's results from a
survey of local government staff in coastal plain communities, limited technological
capacity does not seem to be the reason local governments are not implementing
important watershed protection tools.14
The least prevalent tool, Needs and Capabilities Assessments (NCAs) were used by only
three localities. As one of the tools listed in the Center for Watershed Protection's User
Guide to Watershed Planning in Maryland, the NCA consists of five sections15 which enable
local government staff to readily identify existing resources related to watershed
management.16 The NCA is an organizational checklist to guide local government staff in
assessing what agencies and departments handle certain facets of watershed protection,
whether the locality has adopted specific regulations, and what areas of improvement exist
within the locality. While its purpose overlaps with a number of other possible documents
and even a county’s comprehensive plan, it can help staff to better identify gaps in
regulatory protection or even jurisdictional authority. Since it was originally designed for
Maryland localities, its limited use is not necessarily surprising.
13 Center for Watershed Protection, "Land Use Planning Fact Sheet: Watershed Based Zoning," Stormwater Manager's Resource Center, http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Assorted%20Fact%20Sheets/Tool1_Planning/WatershedBasedZoning.htm. 14 Karen Cappiella, Lauren Lasher, Neely Law, and Chris Swann, Watershed Planning Needs Survey of Coastal Plain Communities (Technical memorandum, Center for Watershed Protection, 2008), 22. 15 The five sections, as originally described by CWP, include: Regulatory Forces Driving Watershed Planning, Local Agency Capacity, Your Local Agency Restoration Rolodex, Adding Non-Local Government Partners to Your Rolodex, and Community Attitudes. 16 Karen Cappiella et al, A User Guide to Watershed Planning in Maryland, Center for Watershed Protection, 2005, 57-58.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 14 }
The results from the survey question concerning TMDL implementation/monitoring plans
are not reflected in Figure 3, largely due to a discrepancy in responses. Some localities
provided feedback concerning their degree of involvement in the development of TMDL
Phase I and II WIPs. Other localities indicated the presence of an impaired watershed
which has a TMDL implementation plan for how to reduce a pollutant exceeding the
maximum allowable load. A small number of surveyed localities have produced plans that
outline how the county government intends to implement reductions to satisfy TMDL
requirements. Frederick County, MD, for example, created a report in July 2012 to analyze
more cost-effective measures to meet TMDL requirements than those recommendations
set forth in the county's WIP.17 Several respondents expressed frustration with being
forced to comply with TMDL requirements, while not receiving state or federal funding
necessarily to do so. For future research, a more detailed question or set of questions
concerning a locality’s level of involvement in TMDL regulations may prove useful.
Though not captured in Figure 3, the first question of our survey asked respondents to list
the known healthy watersheds (based on the respective state’s definition) within a
jurisdiction. Since we only selected localities with at least some portion of a watershed
deemed healthy by state criteria, the survey respondents should have been able to list at
least one healthy watershed. A few counties in Virginia specifically listed watersheds
considered “high quality” based on county-level assessments or some other criteria, other
than INSTAR scores. Pennsylvania counties uniformly recognized the distinctions of HQ
and EV waters and readily provided the names of watersheds classified as such. The
responses varied in Maryland localities, likely due to the variety of possible classifications
for healthy waters in the state.
The watershed management tools listed have variable usefulness for watershed
preservation. They are valuable tools that should be used to preserve healthy watersheds,
but many of the tools could be used without a significant enforcement component. Almost
all of these tools could be used merely as a way to gather information, making it a
necessary component of any watershed preservation plan, but not sufficient on its own to
have a demonstrably positive impact.
17 Frederick County Government, Chesapeake Bay TMDL Analysis for Frederick County, Maryland, 2012.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 15 }
Policy Recommendations
Complete a countywide watershed management plan. Several counties had
watershed management plans for specific watersheds but not necessarily all of
their watersheds.
Integrate the watershed management plan into the comprehensive plan. In order to
enhance effectiveness, the locality’s countywide watershed management plan
should be incorporated into the comprehensive plan and contain specific goals
and requirements that will give teeth to the locality’s watershed protection
strategy. The best watershed management plans were completed on a
countywide basis and were well incorporated into the comprehensive plan.
Utilize community resources. By coordinating with the instrumental non-profit
watershed associations and watershed councils, localities can take advantage of
community resources and better inform the development of countywide policies.
Implement watershed-based zoning. There appears to be a need among localities
for incorporating watershed-based zoning into the development approval
process. Many local governments have a wealth of GIS data on a subwatershed
level and could easily transition to steering development away from the most
critical subwatersheds.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 16 }
ZONING ORDINANCES
From our sample, 19 localities indicated the use of at least one of the listed zoning
ordinances. The four localities that did not use any of the surveyed zoning ordinances were
primarily rural and also contained large areas of land devoted to either federal or state
protection as public forests and historic sites.
Of the zoning ordinances, floating zones were by far the least utilized with only 13% of
localities indicating their use. Several respondents expressed unfamiliarity with the term
and were unsure of their function. A floating zone is a future land use planning tool that
enables a local government to include certain conditions for desirable development
projects without specifying a geographic area in the official zoning map. Floating zones
provide more control to local governments and can be an excellent planning tool to
establish more stringent standards for environmental protection. For example, the zoning
ordinance for Charles County, MD contains four floating zones (Planned Residential
Development Zone, Mixed Use Zone, Planned Employment and Industrial Park Zone, and
Planned Manufactured Home Park Zone), each of which outline criteria to be met in order
for development to receive approval under the respective zoning district. Each floating
zone also contains conditions concerning the preservation of open space.18
In contrast with floating zones, overlay zoning districts become attached to certain
geographic areas and provide additional conditions for land use within those areas.
18 Charles County Government, Charles County Zoning Regulations Chapter 297, 2008.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
ClusterDevelopment
Ordinance
Floating Zones Impervious CoverLimits
Overlay/ SpecialUse Zoning
Districts
Riparian BufferLimits
Steep SlopeOrdinance
Per
cen
t o
f Lo
calit
ies
Figure 4. Zoning Ordinances
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 17 }
Overlay districts are included in a locality’s zoning map. Of the surveyed localities, 48%
had overlay districts which help protect watersheds and water quality. Several
respondents indicated the use of overlay districts to protect drinking water in order to
protect watersheds that supply drinking water to citizens. The overlay districts often
contained stream or riparian buffer requirements, density limits, and steep slope
restrictions.
The majority of localities (52%), particularly in Virginia and Maryland, cited the use of a
cluster development ordinance. By adopting a cluster development ordinance, a local
government can offer smaller lot sizes (e.g. additional development rights) in exchange for
the preservation of a certain percentage of the overall parcel. Despite the clear benefits of
cluster development for more sparsely populated localities, some of the most rural
counties, such as Richmond County, VA, in our sample did not utilize clustering. As
indicated in Richmond's 2011 Comprehensive Plan, however, the County plans to complete
a feasibility study to assess potential new zoning that encourages clustering for agricultural
land.19 Should the proposed zoning come to fruition, Richmond County could preserve its
vital agricultural operations and maintain large open spaces while also accommodating
residential growth.
Impervious cover limits were used by 26% of responding localities. The term "impervious
cover" refers to any surface that does not allow for the absorption or filtration of rainfall,
and such surfaces include rooftops, parking lots, roads and sidewalks. Most commonly
localities cited a 15% impervious cover ordinance, meaning that impervious surface was
limited to no more than 15% to the total lot size. Some localities applied this ordinance to
only certain zoning areas, such as an overlay district protecting critical area, or to only
certain lot sizes. Fairfax County, VA essentially offers a carrot for developers to minimize
imperviousness since developers must meet BMP requirements if impervious surface
surpasses the county’s average land cover condition of 18%.
All three states require some riparian buffer minimums, though not all of the localities
implemented or used these requirements. Of the localities that did use riparian buffer
minimums, some used only a 50-foot setback in narrow circumstances and others used
variable setbacks based on activity and location along the watershed. Some of the localities
are subject to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) regulations. The CBPA requires
100-foot buffers for land adjacent to tidal waters and tidal wetlands (including non-tidal
wetlands contiguous to tidal wetlands), but several localities require vegetation buffers in
certain watersheds or zoning districts.20
19 Richmond County Government, Comprehensive Plan Update, 2011. 20 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, "Riparian Buffers," www.dcr.virginia.gov/stormwater_management/ripbuff.shtml.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 18 }
Some localities used voluntary versions of these tools with financial incentives to gain
compliance from developers. When coupled with adequate incentives these options can
prove as successful as mandatory programs and are potentially easier and cheaper to
implement than mandatory programs. The continued presence of some of these tools is
uncertain in some localities, however. One of the localities noted that they previously used
a number of zoning ordinances which served to protect watersheds but that these
ordinances were eliminated by the Board of Supervisors after an election in which party
control shifted.
Policy Recommendations
Expand vegetation buffer requirements. The majority of surveyed localities either
cited use of a local buffer ordinance or adherence to state requirements for state-
defined healthy watersheds.
Establish risk aversion measures. Risk aversion measures, such as floodplain
ordinances and strong erosion and sediment control regulation, can serve as
successful watershed protection measures where public support for watershed
protection cannot otherwise be leveraged.
Incentivize developers to reduce impervious cover. Local governments should
update local codes to minimize the addition of impervious cover, particularly for
parking lots and streets. Sidewalks and roads can be adequately narrowed
without sacrificing safety or usefulness. Localities should prioritize the use of tax
credits for development that achieves impervious cover reductions beyond the
minimum requirements. Alternatively, localities could consider revising
stormwater utility user fees to incorporate a fee schedule based on impervious
surface.
Create educational and outreach programs for the general public and community of
developers. The potential watershed protection benefits of well-designed zoning
ordinances do not have to come to the detriment of citizens or businesses.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 19 }
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
Of the responding localities, 20 used at least one of the development management tools
listed in the survey. Two of the localities that did not use any development management
tools did not utilize zoning ordinances either. As seen with the two prior sections, these
two localities are predominantly rural with large tracts of protected lands and likely do not
face the same development pressures that other localities face.
LID standards are being increasingly implemented through the adoption of state-mandated
stormwater management plans. All of the states had stormwater management
requirements, but only Maryland required low-impact development (LID) standards as
part of their stormwater management requirements. Slightly more than half of the
responding localities had LID standards, likely due to state stormwater management
requirements.
Urban growth boundaries and community infill and redevelopment efforts were common
in more developed localities, but virtually nonexistent in more rural localities. Rural
localities face fewer development pressures than more urban localities making many of
these tools less useful. Urban localities also noted that infill and redevelopment efforts are
important because of the provision of sewage and public water. Without infill and
community redevelopment efforts urban localities may overload their service provision
abilities while rural areas may more readily handle infill without strict regulation.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Infill and CommunityRedevelopment
Low-Impact DevelopmentStandards
Transfer of DevelopmentRights
Urban Growth Boundaries
Per
cen
t o
f Lo
calit
ies
Figure 5. Development Management
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 20 }
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs were used by 22% of localities and played
a significant role in protecting the healthy watersheds. TDR programs are generally
regarded as preferable to Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) programs in the sense
that development rights with TDR programs are purchased by private citizens and do not
require public funds. Typically, however, PDR programs are more successful in rural,
agricultural counties, and TDR programs work best in suburban or urban localities with
limited open space. Many of the localities that discussed their TDR and PDR programs with
us mentioned agricultural interests as a key constituency for the program. This is likely
because TDR programs can allow for some agricultural development on land designated for
preservation. One Virginia county indicated that a neighboring county recently created a
TDR program, and the surveyed county plans to monitor its implementation and level of
success.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 21 }
Policy Recommendations
Utilize the county’s comprehensive plan to outline development standards which
serve as soft regulations for developers. A few counties found notable success
leveraging zoning approval to gain desired concessions from developers in the
absence of explicit requirements. In counties facing strong resistance to
additional or more restrictive development management ordinances, the
comprehensive plan becomes an ideal tool for prescribing new development
management standards. If development proposals that fail to meet the new
standards do not receive approval, developers will adjust over time to the new
standards, provided compliance with the standards is not cost-prohibitive.
Encourage the use of urban growth boundaries and prioritize infill/redevelopment.
Rural and suburban localities particularly benefit from using urban growth
boundaries and limiting sprawl development. Rural localities can achieve success
in limiting urban growth simply by limiting their service provision.
Introduce a TDR program in localities resistant to more stringent forms of land use
management. TDR programs in more suburban counties experiencing increased
growth can take advantage of market demand for density credits while also
conserving important agricultural or forestal land.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 22 }
NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION
Of the responding localities, 22 used at least one of the natural resource protection tools
mentioned. The number of tools in use, while substantial, does not show the whole picture.
Not all of the tools utilized were used widely throughout the locality and not all of the tools
widely used had teeth. State programs that provide or mandate natural resources
protection at the local level also resulted in some localities relying solely on state programs
and not developing local programs.
Long-term conservation programs are a perfect example of the variable effectiveness of a
useful tool. The most common long-term conservation program identified was the use of
conservation easements, often acquired through federal match programs or state funding.
Localities that could not obtain these matched funds noted difficulties in fully funding these
programs. Some localities also noted that their conservation programs focused heavily on
agricultural lands. In particular, several localities with fairly high levels of agricultural land
indicated their use of Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) programs. A PDR program is
a land conservation program through which a locality simply purchases the development
rights for a parcel, typically retiring the development rights. Several localities also relied
on non-profit organizations to fill in gaps in their own conservation programs.
Landowner stewardship programs and voluntary best management practices (BMPs) were
predictably most common in localities with large agricultural or forestal districts, and
appeared to achieve a significant amount of buy-in from farmers—localities achieved a
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Special Protection of LandsAdjacent to Water
Landowner StewardshipPrograms
Long-term ConservationPrograms
Voluntary Best ManagementPractices
Figure 6. Natural Resources Protection
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 23 }
great amount of success working with the farmers on voluntary efforts. These programs
seemed to be more successful when they offered some kind of property-specific advice,
such as soil sampling and analysis. The most effective programs also offered some
incentives for environmentally beneficial actions.
The designation of critical areas or special protection of lands adjacent to water bodies, the
last policy mentioned, was used by a number of localities. The scope of these critical areas
and the extent of protection were variable across localities. Most of the localities stated
that flood plains fell within the scope of this tool and consumed the bulk of its attention.
Other responses included stormwater ordinances and zoning ordinances for properties
with septic tanks. Pennsylvania had some state requirements for critical areas, and some
federal programs also required protection of critical areas, especially in some of the more
rural areas. Most of the localities used zoning ordinances to implement this specific tool,
though one of the localities mentioned a program where landowners would get money
from both the federal and state government if they included a buffer on their property.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 24 }
Policy Recommendations
Encourage and support conservation easements and PDR programs in rural
counties. Finding cost-effective ways to protect watersheds by utilizing resources
already available is perhaps the most important effort counties can undertake in
natural resources protection. Land trusts and other non-profit organizations
frequently perform outreach to landowners with property ideal for conservation
easements. Rural local governments can collaborate with these organizations to
co-hold easements or simply to help ensure that the most important lands for
conservation easements receive them.
Create a network of green infrastructure. Connecting open space areas with
greenways (i.e. natural, open space corridors) is an excellent way for growing
rural, suburban, and urban localities to incorporate land conservation and
produce economic benefits for the local government. Aside from increasing land
values near the open space corridors and areas, greenways can improve water
quality, reduce flood damage, and help manage stormwater runoff and overflow.21
Ramp up public outreach and education for watershed protection. Counties with
the strongest watershed protection policies also made concerted education
efforts, both to the agricultural sector and the general public. This trend suggests
the importance of such efforts not only in guiding individual behavior but also in
gaining public support for watershed protection.
Incentivize voluntary BMPs, particularly for agricultural land. Counties that gained
buy-in from agricultural operators and other landowners or developers seemed to
be more successful at protecting the watershed. Buy-in seemed greatest when the
county offered advice and incentives for BMPs. Local governments should take
full advantage of state and federal financial incentive programs for the installation
of BMPs.
21 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, "Greenways," www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational_planning/greenway.shtml.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 25 }
COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Surrounding Localities
Partnerships with surrounding localities were not very frequent, but coordination with
other localities did show considerable promise where communities sought ways of sharing
resources to reduce costs. For example, some localities were probing the viability of
sharing the costs of engineers, inspectors, and other experts. Where counties did partner
with one another, some collaborated to offer educational programs for the public as well as
training for farmers and developers. Given the importance of education efforts, as
identified above, these collaborative educational efforts appear to be another imminently
viable way of effectively using resources at the counties’ disposal. The most frequent
coordination, however, was among those localities sharing streams and rivers. Indeed,
regional authorities and watershed management efforts facilitated communication and
coordination between the localities in many instances. In counties without these ties,
however, little communication and coordination with surrounding localities existed.
Establishing lines of communication appeared to be an easy way in which localities could
ensure that their efforts were not being unnecessarily duplicated.
Active Non-Profit Organizations
Every responding locality benefitted from the activity of non-profit organizations operating
within the community. These organizations typically provided the greatest assistance in
water quality monitoring but were also very active advocates and educators within the
surveyed communities. It was certainly clear that non-profit organizations were an
indispensable asset in every locality surveyed. The most common volunteer or non-profit
organizations are listed below:
○ Watershed- or Locality-Specific planning and protection organizations
○ Land trust organizations
○ University programs
○ Trout Unlimited
○ Pennsylvania Senior Environmental Corps
○ The Nature Conservancy
○ Adopt-A-Stream
○ Ducks Unlimited
○ League of Women Voters
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 26 }
INTRASTATE TRENDS
In conducting the survey, it swiftly became apparent that each locality’s efforts were in part
molded by the demographic and legal contours of the state. Accordingly, the following
section teases out some of the state-specific trends and offers case studies of localities in
each state that were particularly responsive to the survey and particularly active in their
watershed protection efforts.
MARYLAND
Figure 7. Map of Surveyed Maryland Counties
Selected Localities
We initially selected 10 localities and added an additional county to replace one of the non-
responsive localities. We received responses and completed surveys for 8 of the 11 total
localities. Maryland was the only state that we targeted towns for survey participation; we
contacted towns because of the fewer number of counties with healthy watersheds (due to
Maryland’s smaller geographic size). The Maryland sample contained a mix of rural and
suburban counties, with some counties containing urbanized areas. The localities differed
in the amount of direct control exercised over zoning and regulatory practices, with some
exercising a great deal of control and one town exercising almost no control over zoning or
regulation. This was also observed in locality concern with the health of the watersheds. A
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 27 }
few localities were very concerned with maintaining their healthy watersheds and
rehabilitating their impaired watersheds, while other localities exhibited little if any
concern with the overall health of their watersheds. The full list of surveyed localities
including demographic information is provided in Table 2 in Appendix II.
Analysis
Maryland exhibits a significant amount of state control over localities. The state imposes a
number of requirements related to watershed management and other environmental
issues. The state should be commended for taking a strong and central role in protecting
its natural lands, but the uniform requirements have been problematic. Maryland
encompasses a diverse set of localities, ranging from the urban Baltimore and DC metro
localities to the suburban bay and ocean front localities of the eastern shores to the rural
mountainous western regions with tracts of federally protected lands. All of these localities
have different concerns and resources, and uniform regulations that may work well for
some localities prove ineffective or unreasonable for others. Localities in Western
Maryland particularly expressed frustration over the application of regulations tailored
toward the more developed parts of the state. These regulations often had the particularly
undesirable effect of inhibiting maintenance of the western communities rather than
simply controlling growth.
Maryland has statewide LID standards and stormwater regulations. Stormwater
regulations are specifically designed to maintain water health through the “[reduction of]
stream channel erosion, pollution, siltation and sedimentation, and local flooding.”22 The
stormwater regulations require environmental site design, through structural design and
nonstructural best management practices, to the maximum extent possible. The state
offers guidance and tools to help localities effectively implement these environmental site
designs. The statute codifying these regulations specifies the use of natural conservation,
impervious cover minimization, and runoff slow down. LID standards have been useful in
improving stormwater management.
Maryland requires the use of some riparian buffer minimums. These minimums are
required for critical areas and forestry harvesting areas, and incentives are offered for
private landowners throughout the state. The size of these buffers differs between
localities with most being around 100 feet.
The more heavily populated counties, focused mainly in the central and eastern counties,
have some form of watershed management plans that are handled at the county level. Most
22 Maryland General Act § 4-201, http://mlis.state.md.us/asp/web_statutes.asp?gen&4-201.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 28 }
of these plans have some watershed specific components involved, and a number are
incorporated into the localities comprehensive plans. The western most localities either
did not have a watershed management plan or did not have one that was effective. The two
westernmost localities also had more concerns with damage from coal mining runoff, were
more rural, and had a larger amount of protected lands.
Case Study: St. Mary’s County
St. Mary’s County has taken significant steps in its effort to maintain the healthy
watersheds within its borders. Like many other counties, St. Mary’s County has a number
of river and watershed groups that have developed watershed action strategies.
Particularly of note, however, is St. Mary’s incorporation of each of these plans into the
County’s water resources management plan. The County has not paid mere lip service to
the goals of the watershed-specific plans but has adopted a number of specific
recommendations by ordinance or incorporation into the County’s comprehensive plan. St.
Mary’s County also makes a concerted effort to update the comprehensive plan regularly to
ensure consistency with water quality recommendations. In an attempt to mitigate future
impacts on its healthy waters, St. Mary’s County places a significant emphasis on
channeling development as well as educating the public about their impact on the
watershed.
In order to determine and assess the health of its watersheds, St. Mary’s County relies, in
addition to state monitoring, on watershed groups under the Maryland Biological Streams
Survey and a robust stream monitoring program operated through St. Mary’s College. The
Army Corps of Engineers also works with the county on feasibility studies for improving
oyster habitat. The County consistently uses the data collected by these groups to help
inform their planning efforts. The County also benefits from a very extensive GIS-based
watershed inventory that shows the vast network of streams in the county and has lots of
information about wetlands, endangered species, and forest cover.
The County’s primary planning and zoning efforts are geared toward ensuring focused
development of the community. The County places a strong emphasis on infill and
community redevelopment as well as on increasing the amount of green space in areas that
were not developed with green space in mind. Under the County’s comprehensive plan,
70% of all development must occur in the development districts, town centers, and village
centers; these are also the only areas where commercial districts are allowed. The County’s
cluster development ordinance requires 50% of land in rural areas to remain as
undeveloped open space. As a result of these policies and that attendant difficulty and
expense of building in the rural parts of the County, rural development has come to a
virtual halt. In addition to the planning and zoning tools focused on limiting rural
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 29 }
development, the County has a steep slope ordinance that protects any slope of 15% or
greater in critical areas and 25% or greater outside critical areas; riparian buffer
minimums that account for adjacency to critical areas, non-tidal wetlands, and hydric soils;
and critical area protections that limits impervious cover, density, type, and location of
development. The County has had particular success in using regulations meant to reduce
risk to persons and property as a means of protecting its healthy watersheds.
St. Mary’s County also has extensive regulatory and management programs in place.
Mostly through the state, but occasionally through local acquisition or mitigation
requirements for public works projects, St. Mary’s County has established a significant
number of conservation easements to protect its healthy watersheds. St. Mary’s also has a
unique Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, through which individuals and
commercial developers can purchase TDRs in order to exceed the maximum number of
dwelling units or floor area allowed per acre. Finally, the County promotes voluntary BMPs
and is currently setting up a neighborhood certification program that individuals can enter
BMPs online and the County can be credited under the TMDL.
In its efforts to protect its healthy watersheds, St. Mary’s County notably utilizes its
relationships with surrounding counties, particularly with respect to common issues
relating to the TMDL requirements. Placing a high value on education efforts, the County
also does a laudable job of coordinating with and supporting the various private volunteer
groups, watershed associations, and schools in its area.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 30 }
PENNSYLVANIA
Figure 8. Map of Surveyed Pennsylvania Counties
Selected Localities
We initially contacted 10 localities in Pennsylvania but added 2 additional localities to
replace unresponsive localities. Of the 12 overall localities contacted we received 9
responses. These localities were overwhelmingly rural in composition. Unique to these
localities was the existence of conservation districts to manage environmental concerns.
The full list of surveyed localities including demographic information is provided in Table
3 in Appendix II.
Analysis
In Pennsylvania each watershed must receive a stormwater management plan which
differs from Virginia and Maryland’s approach to locality-level stormwater management
programs. Of the surveyed Pennsylvania counties, Cumberland, Elk, Lycoming, and Mifflin
had completed Act 167 stormwater management plans for all of its watersheds as of May
12, 2011.23 Pennsylvania Code requires riparian buffers of 150 feet for land-disturbing
23 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 1978 Stormwater Management Act 167, 2011.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 31 }
activities occurring in HQ or EV watersheds.24 Pennsylvania was also unique in the
localities’ manifest need to coordinate multiple layers of government.
There is no unincorporated land within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, so the
counties just extensively coordinate with the municipalities they encompass, in addition to
coordinating with conservation districts, non-profits, regional councils of government, and
the state. This augmented need for coordination was further complicated by the generally
lower population sizes of the counties and fewer community and county resources to
facilitate coordination. Many respondents expressed frustration over the inefficiency and
duplication of work effort that this coordination challenge created. Increased efforts to
coordinate and centralize the watershed protection process within each county has
perhaps the greatest potential to yield positive results. The most significant barrier to this
effort, aside from limited resources, is the distinct priorities of rural and developed
municipalities within many counties in the Commonwealth; rural municipalities commonly
being less concerned with watershed protection efforts and placing a greater value on
individual autonomy.
Case Study: Centre County
The Centre County Conservation District official who responded to the survey identified a
number of healthy streams within the county, but noted that while some parts of the
identified streams were healthy, other parts were impaired by acid mine drainage.
Although Centre County has a countywide management plan, it does not incorporate the
individual watershed assessments for streams within the county. The assessments were
very extensive and were all completed within the last 10 years by watershed associations
or Pennsylvania State University’s Center for Watershed Stewardship. Additionally, water
authorities encompassing several municipalities within the county developed source water
protection plans in order to protect drinking water. Each of the watershed assessments
made recommendations that considered the impact of future growth. A number of entities
regularly survey and assess water quality, including the state fish and boat commission,
Pennsylvania Senior Environmental Corps, and water resource monitoring teams
supported jointly by municipalities.
Of the 35 municipalities in Centre County, only 1 used overlay districts to protect its
healthy watershed. Every municipality did, however, incorporate into its land
development ordinance impervious cover restrictions for new development. State Act 167
addresses countywide stormwater management and is watershed-based—Centre County
has a 167 plan for two stream watersheds. One township attempted to pass a steep slope
24 Pennsylvania Code § 102.14, www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter102/s102.14.html.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 32 }
ordinance but faced strong opposition from the public. Each developed township has
adopted a riparian buffer minimum, but, outside of complying with the state Chapter 102
requirement of riparian buffers for high quality waters and new developments, no rural
municipalities have adopted a riparian buffer minimum. While some municipalities
encourage infill, community redevelopment, and cluster development, none had any official
requirement; essentially we found lots of layers but no real enforcement. The county has a
GIS-based watershed inventory accessible by the public, as well as access to information
through Penn State.
With regard to regulatory and management tools, Centre County had agricultural land
preservation programs that placed conservation easements on land. A few municipalities
have an open space program through which public funds are used to purchase open space.
Under the EPA’s MS4 requirements, more populated municipalities must adopt low-impact
development standards related to stormwater management. A number of landowner
stewardship programs through the state that are geared toward farmers required
conservation plans and manure and nutrient management plans. These state laws,
however, have not moved to enforcement at the county level. Rather, the county focuses on
helping farmers become compliant. The erosion and sediment control officials have
greater enforcement power. Voluntary BMPs for farmers are encouraged through match
programs by which the county will contribute 50% of the cost.
There are many layers of programs and involvement in watershed protection necessitating
coordination between localities. For example, watershed group’s coordinate across
counties and the regional council governments coordinate across municipalities within
Centre County. Centre County also coordinates work with Clifford County on the streams
that form the counties’ shared boundary. The Centre County Conservation District focuses
its efforts on seeking federal grants, such as EPA’s Healthy Waters program, and PDEP’s
Healthy Waters program. Finally, the county benefits from the work of a number of
watershed groups, an active League of Women Voters chapter, and Penn State.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 33 }
VIRGINIA
Figure 9. Map of Surveyed Virginia Counties
Selected Localities
We initially contacted ten localities but added one additional locality to replace an
unresponsive locality. Of the eleven overall localities contacted, seven ultimately
responded. Virginia’s response rate was the lowest response rate of any of the three states.
The localities chosen were evenly distributed between rural, suburban, and urban
localities. Virginia had the most diverse locality selection of the three states, and also had
the highest average socioeconomic status. The full list of surveyed localities including
demographic information is provided in Table 4 in Appendix II.
Analysis
Virginia engages in statewide monitoring of watershed health.25 According to the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia has the third largest water quality
monitoring database of all states. Virginia’s recently expanded state stormwater
regulations are currently being implemented across the state and are moving localities
25 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, "Water Quality Monitoring Programs," http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQualityMonitoring.aspx.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 34 }
toward increased utilization of LID standards, though at differing rates of rapidity. Also,
VDCR's Healthy Waters Initiative, funded by EPA as part of its Healthy Watersheds
program, attempts to increase awareness about the need to protect healthy waters within
the state.26 Although the initiative does not seem well known by local governments in the
state, it has the potential to spur watershed protection activities if it can successfully
collaborate with local staff.
In surveying the diverse set of localities in Virginia, it became clear that urbanized and
rural localities had very distinct priorities relating to watershed protection. The more rural
Central Virginia localities placed a high value on maintaining their agricultural character by
limiting development, most notably through conservation easement programs. Although
the rural localities’ desire to cabin development has had the effect of maintaining healthy
watersheds, doing so was not a primary motivation for these efforts. Furthermore, these
localities were less likely to employ environmentally focused measures via zoning
ordinances and watershed management efforts. The more urbanized localities, conversely,
sought to facilitate responsible development, but recognized development as an inevitable
outcome.
Case Study: Fairfax County
Fairfax County provided great insight into how a rapidly developing county within the
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area can actively utilize various policies and programs to
protect areas with high water quality. The County’s Department of Public Works and
Environmental Services developed an internal system to assess ecological health within the
county. Wastewater Management's Environmental Laboratory, within Public Works,
conducts approximately 100,000 analyses to support the county's various environmental
programs. The County also conducts ecosystem monitoring in and around Pohick Creek
and Gunston Cove which receive treated wastewater effluent from the Normal M. Cole, Jr.
wastewater treatment facility.
The County has also acted aggressively to protect drinking water within the county. For
example, in the southern part of the county exist designated special areas which maintain
low density zoning in order to protect the water supply. These specially protected areas
also tend to be the more pristine watersheds within the county. The Occoquan River
watershed is a vital component within the county as the Occoquan Reservoir provides
drinking water for approximately 1.7 million residents throughout the Northern Virginia
26 Jennifer Ciminelli et al. Healthy Waters. Report, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, 2-3.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 35 }
area.27 As a result, the County undertook comprehensive rezoning of two-thirds of the
watershed to be zoned as RC (1 building unit per 5 acres).
Fairfax County is one of the few counties surveyed in Virginia that has completed a
watershed management plan. The County began working on the plan in 2003 and
completed its 3-watershed plan in 2011. Prior to initiating work on the watershed
management plan, the County completed stream physical assessments from 2001-2002.
From those 2001-2002 assessments, only 9% of streams were deemed excellent condition,
14% good, 32% fair, 34% poor, and 11% very poor. In each subsequent year the County
has completed a similar, but scaled-down (roughly 40 assessments annually) series of
stream assessments using probability-based criteria. Using the Stream Quality Index,
which incorporates annual data on populations of benthic macroinvertebrates to create an
index value ranging from one to five (five indicating excellent water quality), the county
received an index score of 2.83 in 2011. Using 2004-2011 monitoring data, the percent of
good and excellent quality streams in the county increased from 13% and 0% to 20% and
12.5%, respectively.28
By utilizing GIS tools, the County models different assumptions for how land use and
development will change in the future. County staff also run various scenarios over
existing land use and land cover to estimate impacts on water quality and quantity. Given
that only 6.5% of the county’s total land remains vacant, infill and redevelopment plays a
critical role in future development for the county.29 Considering the extensive stormwater
management requirements for redevelopment, the surveyed county official indicated that
more LID principles and techniques are appearing.
Interestingly with Fairfax County, staff indicated that while the County has not adopted a
number of the ordinances and regulations highlighted in our survey, the County
encourages certain elements in proposed development and developers know to
incorporate the encouraged measures into their proposals in order to receive approval.
For example, no steep slope ordinance exists within the county, but the County’s
comprehensive plan addresses the stringent expectations regarding steep slope, and the
surveyed county official indicated that developers recognize the need to adhere to the
comprehensive plan’s guidance in order to receive approval for a proposed development
project.
27 Prince William Conservation Alliance, "The Occoquan Reservoir," http://www.pwconserve.org/issues/occoquan/quickfacts.htm. 28 Fairfax County Stormwater Planning Division, 2011 Fairfax County Stormwater Status Report, Fairfax County Government, 2011. 29 Molchany, David, “Building a Sustainable Future – Energy Efficient Fairfax County,” Presentation, Fairfax County Government, 2012, Slide 3.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 36 }
Although the county does not have urban growth boundaries per se, the comprehensive
plan does identify growth centers and the boundaries of these growth centers. The County
also uses environmental quality corridors (EQCs), which are natural corridors that connect
areas of open space. The County incentivizes the preservation of EQC land by allowing
density transfers to non-EQC areas of the property. The County employed the use of no less
than 50% of the surveyed policies in all four categories. Despite being the most densely
populated, urban locality in our sample, Fairfax County stuck out as a local government
dedicated to preserving as much of its healthy waters as possible.
CORRELATION AND REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Given our client’s long-term goals to assess the effectiveness of local policies in protecting
healthy watersheds, we used our survey data, along with secondary data, to investigate
relationships in our data. We do find statistically significant correlations among our data,
and these findings are described below. It is important to indicate, however, that the
findings represent correlations and are not evidence of causation. Correlations provide
rather helpful insights into whether certain groups of policies are positively or negatively
correlated with measures of watershed health, as well as determining the extent to which
two sets of data are correlated.
DATA DESCRIPTION
As a measure of water quality, we used data from Chesapeake Bay Program that gathers
benthic macroinvertebrate samples data from multiple agencies and partners to uniformly
evaluate biotic integrity, a commonly used indicator of water quality. Using the
Chesapeake Bay Basin-wide Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI), water quality scores
were determined using data from 8,871 randomly sampled sites. The data used was
collected between 2000 and 2008 by state and federal government agencies, local
governments, non-profit organizations, and academic institutions. Possible score values
range from 0-100, with a score of 100 indicating the best possible biotic integrity score.
The scores are further categorized into ranges of “very poor” (0-17%), “poor” (17-30%),
“fair” (30-50%), “good” (50-67%), and “excellent” (67-100%).3031
Since our team surveyed only counties that contained at least a portion of at least one
watershed meeting its respective state’s criteria for a healthy watershed, an average B-IBI
30 Chesapeake Bay Program, "Health of Freshwater Streams in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed," www.chesapeakebay.net/indicators/indicator/health_of_freshwater_streams_in_the_chesapeake_bay_watershed. 31 Chesapeake Bay Program, "Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009," 2009, www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/cbp_505131.pdf.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 37 }
index score of very poor, poor, or fair does not indicate a complete absence of high quality
watersheds within the county. In total, our sample included 92 B-IBI scores, with an
average of 4.8 scores per county.32 To create goodexcbibi, we calculated the percent of B-
IBI index scores within the “good” or “excellent” range from the total B-IBI index scores
within a county. Similarly with fairtoexcbibi, we calculated the percent of B-IBI index
scores falling within the “fair,” “good,” or “excellent” range in order to capture higher
proportions of watersheds within the counties.
Given the lack of water quality data meeting sampling criteria for some of our Pennsylvania
counties, Elk County and Mifflin County were removed from the sample. The town of La
Plata, MD was also removed from the sample.
We included the three demographic explanatory variables personssqmi, bachelorshghr, and
medianhhinc to serve as measures of population density, education attainment, and
household wealth, respectively. We gathered information on the number of persons per
square mile, our measure of population density, as we expected lower levels of water
quality from our watershed health indicators due to more densely populated counties
currently experiencing and with a history of experiencing significant development.33 We
hypothesized that higher percentages of the county’s population 25 years or older with at
least a bachelor’s degree would correspond with higher average B-IBI index scores due to
an increased public awareness for watershed issues. As with our population density
measure, our education measure data came from 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data.34 Echoing
the similar assumptions of former researchers, we anticipated that counties with higher
levels of household wealth correspond with higher levels of water quality due to a greater
public demand for local policies that focus on watershed protection and restoration.35 The
median household income data came from U.S. Census Bureau’s 2006-2010 American
Community Survey’s five-year estimates.36 Summary statistics can be found in Table 5 in
Appendix IV.
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Initially, we conducted a correlation analysis of all of the variables in our data set. A
correlation analysis uses statistical software to measure the degree of association between
variables. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 6 in Appendix IV. When
32 The total amount is based on 36 scores in Maryland, 22 scores in Pennsylvania, and 34 scores in Virginia. 33 U.S. Census Bureau, “State & County QuickFacts,” 2010, http://quickfacts.census.gov. 34 Ibid. 35 James Miller et. al, “Biodiversity Conservation in Local Planning.” Conservation Biology 23, no.1 (2008): 56. 36 U.S. Census Bureau, "2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates," www.factfinder2.census.gov.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 38 }
investigating correlations between the specific surveyed policies and the three watershed
health measures, we found two significant correlations. LID standards and landowner
stewardship programs were negatively associated with B-IBI scores and the percent of fair
to excellent quality watersheds, respectively.
Some additional correlations stood out when analyzing correlations between the policies.
For example, having a watershed management plan was significantly and positively
correlated with conducting water quality monitoring. Localities that used overlay districts
for watershed protection were positively associated with localities that had long-term
conservation programs. Finally, two pairs of variables showed the strongest associations
(with correlation coefficients of 0.87), with each pair being positively associated. Having a
conservation program was positively correlated with both having a GIS-based and LID
standards. The relatively high number of variables correlated with conservation programs
isn't too surprising given how many localities had conservation programs.
To build on the correlation coefficients, we also utilized regression models to gain a better
sense of the potential correlations between local policies and watershed health. We
conducted an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression using our three watershed health
measures as dependent variables. The regression models enable us to estimate
relationships between our watershed health measures and each of our explanatory
variables, while accounting for possible correlations with the other explanatory variables.
Based on the results of the regressions, we can identify statistically significant correlations
between our selected variables.
As shown in the second column of Table 7 in Appendix IV, our OLS regression model using
the average B-IBI index score within a locality as our dependent variable does not produce
any statistically significant results. Given the small sample size and limited number of B-IBI
index scores in some counties, these results are not necessarily surprising. Despite the lack
of statistical significance, we can begin to note the presence of positive or negative
coefficients. The variables personssqmi, bachelorshghr, wtrdsmgmt, and devmgmt have
negative coefficients. Interestingly only the variables zoningords and natrsrcsprot have
positive coefficients indicating that an increase in the percent of zoning ordinances and
natural resources protection policies, respectively, is positively correlated with the average
B-IBI index score within a county. The variable medianhhinc has a positive but almost
negligible coefficient value.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 39 }
In the third column, we find a significant and negative correlation between devmgmt and
goodexcbibi. The data indicates that we can estimate a 47%37 decrease in the proportion of
watersheds with good or excellent quality B-IBI scores, given a 51% increase in the percent
of development management policies a county uses. In other words, for every 1% increase
in a county’s development management policies, we can estimate a nearly 1%38 decrease in
the percent of good or excellent quality watersheds within that county. While this finding
seems to counterintuitively suggest that counties playing a more active regulatory role in
development management also have fewer proportions of high quality watersheds, a
number of factors could explain this result. In examining the correlations between specific
policies within the Development Management category and our dependent variable, we
find that LID standards have the strongest correlation at a coefficient of -0.4439. Since LID
standards provide improvements to stormwater management by minimizing stormwater
runoff, the presence of LID standards within a county likely signifies a high degree of
development and stormwater infrastructure.40
Lastly, we find two statistically significant correlations in the fourth column which shows
the results of an OLS regression using our third dependent variable fairtoexcbibi. The
variable bachelorshghr is statistically significant and negatively correlated with
fairtoexcbibi. This means that for every percent increase in the proportion of the
population with at least a bachelor’s degree, we can predict a 1.6% decrease in the percent
of fair, good, or excellent watersheds within a county. At first glance this finding may seem
counterintuitive assuming more highly educated populations will be more aware of water
quality issues. A possible explanation may simply be that areas with higher proportions of
college-educated people are also more developed areas. Given the overwhelming link
between rural areas and high water quality, this explanation seems very plausible.
Also in the fourth column, we find significant relationships between one of our policy
categories and our dependent variable, the percent of a county’s water samples deemed
“good” or “excellent.” The variable zoningords is positively correlated with fairtoexcbibi.
This result suggests that we can predict a 0.5% increase in the proportion of high-quality
watersheds within a county given a 1% increase in zoning ordinances. Of course, this
finding only indicates a statistically significant correlation and not causation.
37 We calculated a 47% decrease by multiplying the coefficient by the sample mean. The calculation occurred as follows: -0.9248*0.5125 = -0.4739. This result is the estimated mean effect. 38 We multiplied the coefficient by one percent, as follows: -0.9248*0.01 = -0.0093. This is a value of -0.93%. 39 Correlation coefficients are calculated on a scale of -1 to 1 with -1 and 1 indicating perfectly negative and positive correlations, respectively. 40 The correlation coefficient between lidstandards and personssqmi is 0.29, which does not suggest a strong association; however, this result could be skewed by the small sample size.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 40 }
Development management policies and zoning ordinances may be the two most effective
categories of tools for preserving watershed health. The results of our statistical analysis
seem to suggest this conclusion, though the regression models do not imply causation. The
two categories were the only sets of policies with statistically significant correlations to our
watershed health measures. Our findings beg the question of why development
management tools are negatively associated with better watershed health but zoning
ordinances are positively associated.
Development management is primarily a set of reactive tools designed to reduce the
amount of or rate of certain types of development. Zoning ordinances, on the other hand,
focus more on a preventative, conservation approach. For example, riparian buffer and
steep slope ordinances are specifically intended to provide environmental protection.
Development management policies often do not appear in local codes until a locality is
fairly suburban. Once a locality becomes relatively urbanized, the use of development
management policies seems to diminish.
Certain limitations within our data make it difficult to ascertain how robust the statistically
significant correlations are given the amount of unknown data associated with our analysis.
We recognize that our analysis is potentially limited by the following factors: small sample
size, endogeneity, and omitted variable bias. Furthermore, we attempted to verify and
apply uniform assumptions to as much of the data as possible, but we recognize the
possibility for potential errors.
As mentioned previously, a sample size of only 20 localities makes it difficult to note
statistically significant relationships. In addition to a limited overall sample size, we were
also unable to run regression analyses using variables to account for whether a county is
located in Maryland, Pennsylvania, or Virginia. Since each state only had seven to eight
localities participating in the survey, we would not have generated robust results. Given
the variations among state regulations regarding local policies, it could be highly useful and
informative to control for these variations.
Since our data does not enable us to analyze how changes in local watershed policies
correlate with changes in water quality, our current data provides only a snapshot in time.
The cross-sectional data presents the possibility for issues of endogeneity. Our regression
models predict the health of a locality’s watershed based on local demographics and
policies. The relationship could easily be circular, however. It may simply be that more
developed counties have additional resources to implement various watershed protection
policies but also, as a consequence of their development, have higher portions of poor or
very poor quality watersheds. Future research could help avoid this problem of
endogeneity by using lagged data for the dependent variables.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 41 }
As indicated above, the regression analyses also likely suffer from omitted variable bias.
Although we included three demographic measures to account for differences in
population density, education levels, and income levels, it is highly likely that other factors
not incorporated in our analyses also affect the watershed health measures.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 42 }
MOVING FORWARD
Given the limited sample size and lack of sufficient water quality scores in Pennsylvania,
our team could only reasonably analyze correlations between variables. Furthermore, the
average water quality scores were extracted from 2000-2010 data, but the survey data
concerning local policies only accounts for policies in place as of 2012. As a result, the
current data provides only a snapshot of data and does not offer the opportunity to analyze
how changes in local policies correlate with changes in water quality. Due to the limited
data, our team could not statistically infer any causal relationships between the adoption or
presence of certain policies and the maintained or improved percentage of healthy
watersheds in a locality. Certainly, given the number and fluctuation of variables affecting
water quality, precise effects of specific zoning and regulation efforts will be difficult to
isolate, even with improved data.
In order to adequately gather data for a comprehensive analysis, we recommend initiating
a project designed to utilize a detailed checklist, similar to VDCR’s Checklist for Advisory
Review of Local Ordinances, disseminated to relevant staff of local governments within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed either annually or biennially. Given the additional cost
constraints associated with conducting an annual survey and the often lengthy process of
ordinance adoption, we recommend a biennial survey.
There are variations among Chesapeake Bay states for whether certain watershed
protection tools, such as riparian buffer or stormwater management requirements, are
regulated at the state or local level (or both). Given this inconsistency, the survey should
explicitly address these potential differences. When compiling and analyzing the survey
data, future researchers should account for variations in regulatory authority. It is
important to capture the possible layers of regulations. A locality may be located in a state
with fairly progressive stormwater management requirements but that specific locality
may also expand upon the state requirements with additional local restrictions.
Alternatively, a locality may not implement an ordinance that addresses certain
restrictions, such as buffer requirements, within healthy watersheds but that does not
indicate a complete lack of protection. Buffer requirements may exist at the state level for
high quality watersheds. Given the numerous recent amendments in state regulations
affecting Chesapeake Bay watersheds, the overlap between state and local regulations is a
highly useful relationship to track.
In conducting a future survey, we would also emphasize the potential benefits of surveying
both planning and zoning officials, as well as conservation district officials. In our pilot
survey, these two subsets contributed unique perspectives and insights that would allow
the research team to gain the most complete picture possible of localities’ watershed
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 43 }
protection efforts. Further, in addition to the technical aspects of the survey, future
researchers should attempt to map coordination efforts between the variety of actors
involved in watershed protection. Through the pilot survey, it became clear that
maximizing coordination between levels of government and with non-profit organizations
was the most cost-effective means of protecting watershed health and fully capturing the
benefits of the resources available in the face of budget and political expediency limitations.
In conjunction with the biennial survey, the future research team should conduct and
compile water quality assessments biennially. Various academic institutions, non-profit
organizations, and governmental entities already collect samples of benthic
macroinvertebrates and can contribute their sampling results for the purposes of the
recommended research project. By using an index score such as the Chesapeake Bay Basin-
wide Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI), the research team can gather benthic
macroinvertebrate samples collected by various groups. Given the variations in state
protocols for how to score and assess the sampling indicators, the research team can
uniformly calculate an index score across state lines.
Recognizing the intent of our client to gauge the effectiveness of local policies in protecting
its healthy watersheds, we recommend that future survey research maintain a
categorization of policies. Within the categories (e.g. Development Management and
Natural Resources Protection), model ordinances and model programs should be
determined for each policy prior to launching the survey. The researchers could then rate
the ordinance or program on a small scale (e.g. 0-3) to account for whether a locality did
not have the policy or whether the policy failed to meet, met, or exceeded the model policy.
By incorporating this implementation score into the data analysis, researchers can
investigate the effectiveness of certain policies on watershed protection, while accounting
for differences in stringency.
In addition to VDCR’s checklist, EPA created a Water Quality Scorecard in 2009 which lists
policy questions and corresponding goals intended for local governments to gauge their
level of stormwater management and watershed protection. The scorecard could prove
particularly useful when developing a lengthier, more detailed survey. The scorecard lists
implementation tools and policies across five categories, and each line item is worth a set
number (e.g. 2) or range of possible (e.g. 1-3) points. For example, a responding local
government can receive two points in the Support Infill and Redevelopment category if the
locality claims the use of "[z]oning and land development regulations [that] implement
urban service areas/urban growth boundary policies by restricting development in
outlying areas."41
41 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Scorecard, 2009, 25.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 44 }
In conclusion, the results of our survey suggest that a number of local policies serve to
protect and maintain healthy watersheds in the Chesapeake Bay. Additionally, the majority
of survey respondents indicated a desire to expand their current watershed protection
efforts. While support from state and federal agencies plays a critical role for local
governments seeking to preserve healthy waters, local governments can better utilize
codes and ordinances to achieve goals of watershed protection. Future research which
actively tracks local codes, ordinances, and other regulations affecting watershed health
can gauge the effectiveness of these policies to guide local governments.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 45 }
APPENDICES
I. Healthy Watersheds Survey II. Demographic Profiles of Localities III. Survey Response Summaries IV. Data Output Tables
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 46 }
APPENDIX I: HEALTHY WATERSHEDS SURVEY 1. Based on your state's definition of a “healthy watershed,” please identify any known
healthy watersheds within your community's jurisdiction. If your state has not
defined healthy watersheds are there any watersheds of special designation (trout
streams, sensitive species, high quality according to EPA standards, etc.) in your
community’s jurisdiction?
2. Has your community completed a watershed management plan? If so, when was it
implemented and last updated? How does it relate to your comprehensive plan?
3. If the community has healthy watersheds and a watershed management plan, does the
plan account for how future land use will impact any healthy waters within the
community? If so, how?
4. Does your community survey and assess the health of its watersheds? If so, how
often?
5. Does your community use any of the following planning or zoning tools to protect
healthy watersheds?
o Overlay or special use zoning districts
o Impervious cover limits
o Watershed-based zoning
o Floating zones
o Steep slope ordinance
o Riparian buffer minimums
o GIS-Based watershed inventory
o Infill/Community redevelopment
o Urban growth boundaries
o Cluster development ordinance
o Critical area or special protection of lands adjacent to water bodies
o Other: Please describe.
6. Does your community utilize any of the following regulatory or management
programs to protect healthy watersheds?
o Long-term conservation protection programs
o Implementation and monitoring plan
o Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs)
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 47 }
o Low-Impact Development (LID) standards
o Landowner stewardship programs
o Needs and Capabilities Assessment (NCA)
o Voluntary best management practices (BMPs)
o Guidance or restrictions on proper application/use of fertilizers and
pesticides
o Emergency spill response plan
o Other: please describe.
7. Do you have any partnerships with surrounding localities to coordinate watershed
management responsibilities? If so, which localities?
8. Are there any community stewardship or volunteer monitoring programs (e.g.
Adopt-A-Stream) in your community? Are there any non-governmental
organizations working to protect watersheds in your community?
9. Aside from the programs and tools already addressed, are there any other ways in
which your locality actively protects its healthy watersheds?
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 48 }
APPENDIX II: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES OF
LOCALITIES
Table 2. Maryland Locality Demographics
Locality Population Area (Sq
Mile)
Persons
per Sq
Mile
Percent 25
Years or Older
with
Bachelor’s
Degree or
Higher
Median
Household
Income
Allegany County 75,087 424 177 15.9% $37,747
Charles County 149,130 458 320 26.1% $88,825
Frederick County 236,746 667 354 35.8% $60,276
Garrett County 30,079 656 47 17.5% $32,238
Harford County 246,489 526 560 30.5% $57,234
La Plata 8,753 7 1,250 28.6% $80,129
St. Mary’s County 105,151 357 294 27.4% $80,053
Worcester
County 51,454 695 110 26.1% $40,650
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 49 }
Table 3. Pennsylvania Locality Demographics
Locality Population Area (Sq
Mile)
Persons
per Sq
Mile
Percent 25
Years or Older
with
Bachelor’s
Degree or
Higher
Median
Household
Income
Cameron County 5,085 399 13 14.9% $39,773
Centre County 154,722 1,112 139 40.0% $47,016
Cumberland
County
235,406 545 432 32.3% $60,832
Elk County 31,751 832 39 16.2% $43,745
Lycoming County 116,747 1,244 95 18.8% $42,689
Mifflin County 46,682 415 114 11.1% $37,539
Tioga County 42,419 1,137 37 17.7% $40,338
Union County 44,847 317 142 22.2% $45,474
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 50 }
Table 4. Virginia Locality Demographics
Locality Population Area (Sq
Mile)
Persons
per Sq
Mile
Percent 25
Years or Older
with
Bachelor’s
Degree or
Higher
Median
Household
Income
Fairfax County 1,100,692 391 2767 58.0% $105,416
Fauquier County 66,071 647 101 30.8% $83,877
Loudoun County 312,311 521 606 57.2% $115,574
Richmond
County
9,220 191 48 9.8% $42,182
Rappahannock
County
7,444 266 28 37.4% $62,117
Shenandoah
County
42,289 509 83 17.5% $50,171
Spotsylvania
County
124,327 402 305 29.9% $76,574
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 51 }
APPENDIX III: SURVEY RESPONSE SUMMARIES Maryland
Allegany County
The Allegany County Land Use and Planning official who responded to the survey identified
three Tier 2 watersheds in the County. The county had twelve different watershed-based
comprehensive plans but this did not work and was poorly managed. Perhaps two plans
for the Eastern and Western parts of the County would have worked as the Western part of
the County has coal mining, but dividing the County into twelve different watershed plans
did not make sense because there are not drastically different issues from watershed to
watershed. . After six years of unfeasibility, the watershed specific plans were scrapped as
the task became insurmountable. The County now has one watershed management plan
that accounts for future land use and development, although the healthy watersheds are in
areas that will not be developed, such as conservation land or steep slope areas—only
2.5% of the county is populated when you exclude steep slopes and conserved land. The
soil conservation district for the county has conducted two stream corridor assessments,
but these assessments were for watersheds that were not high quality.
Allegany County uses a number of planning and zoning tools to maintain its healthy
watershed. The County has a steep slope ordinance by which any land having a greater
than 25% slope is non buildable. The County has riparian buffer minimums written into its
land use ordinance and also benefits from a GIS-based watershed inventory. Although
there are no explicit urban growth boundaries or infill initiatives, the County’s
comprehensive plan encourages infill and redevelopment and the water and sewer plan
establishes a municipal growth area for each of the municipalities. Limiting growth to
protect healthy watersheds, however, is not a priority for the County because the healthy
watersheds are in conservation land or steep slope areas that will not ever be
developed. Indeed, the respondent expressed that the County was frustrated with all of the
Maryland state regulations that are tailored toward the more populated areas in the
Eastern part of Maryland, and only have the effect of Allegany County of diverting
businesses and individuals to Pennsylvania or West Virginia, thus inhibiting the
community’s ability to sustain itself.
Allegany County also employs regulatory and management programs to protect its healthy
watersheds. The County actively participates in the Maryland Agricultural Land
Preservation (MALF) program, an easement program that buys out farmers’ development
rights. The County also engages in flood buyout acquisitions to remove residential
structures from the floodplain. Through its TMDL watershed protection plan committee,
the County is currently seeking a tree planting grant and in order to improve the
effectiveness of this effort, the County is working on a GIS-based model that identifies the
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 52 }
most ideal places to plant trees. The County’s soil conservation district currently works
with agricultural landowners to plant trees along streams through the Conservation
Resource and Enhancement Program (CREP) and also offers guidance to farmers on the
proper application and use of fertilizers and pesticides. Through the state-required
stormwater management program, Allegany County administers low-impact development
standards.
Through its Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) committee, the County coordinates
with the smaller municipalities to administer regulations. While the County used to have a
relationship with surrounding localities through various tributary teams, the County no
longer participates in these team projects. There are, however, a number of watershed
associations within the County and The Nature Conservancy’s Allegany Forests Project
Director is also active in the effort to maintain healthy watersheds within the County.
Charles County
Charles County has several high quality waters, totaling to about 15. The county is
currently in the process of implementing a watershed management plan, and hopes to
complete it in the year 2012. This implementation also comes with an update of the
county's comprehensive plan. As such, the surveying and maintenance of watersheds
varies, with some watersheds given more precedence than others. Though there is not a
watershed plan yet, the county does encourage several tools, which include zoning based
on watersheds and special use, floating zones, steep slope ordinances, infill redevelopment,
and cluster development ordinances. In addition to this, the county also keeps track of
watersheds using GIS. Charles County does have a transfer of development rights program,
as well as development standards and best management practices. A landowner
stewardship program is available upon application.
Several community groups exist within Charles County and the surrounding area. The
majority of them (including the Patuxent River Commission and the Wicomico Scenic River
Commission) focus on the health of particular watersheds. These groups often organize
assessment and community involvement programs to insure that their respective
watersheds are kept healthy. In addition to these groups, Charles County has also
partnered with surrounding counties such as St. Mary’s in order to promote watershed
health of those that may overlap between county lines.
Frederick County
Frederick County has a number of healthy watersheds within its boundaries, including a
number of non-degradation areas. Frederick has created a watershed management plan
that is driven by the CWA and NPDES requirements, as well as state water standards. This
county also participates in the voluntary CWA §319 program for non-point sources, and
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 53 }
was recognized by EPA for the quality of its program. Approximately 60% of the localities
in the county have developed a watershed management plan as well. Frederick did
indicate that the requirements from the state and the EPA were different, and that the
plans of the communities driven by these different criteria were sometimes conflicting. A
weakness identified in this plan was its failure to account to future land use impacts on the
watershed. The plan does include monitoring of the watersheds. This includes randomly
stratifying smaller streams, countywide biological assessments, and a long-term
monitoring station. Enough sites are sampled every 5 years to get a statistical perspective
of watershed health.
During the interview it was mentioned that much of the community planning is not
integrated with watershed management. Frederick County has no impervious cover limits,
but has engaged in an impervious cover reduction plan and has stringent restrictions on
the effects of impervious cover. A state policy for impervious cover offsets is also being
developed. The county also uses substantial GIS information and releases the data for free
on its websites. This data also includes the catchments for the watersheds. The specialist I
talked to was worried that the recent election was going to negative impacts on the health
of the watershed. According to the specialist the board leans towards deregulation
politically and has moved to eliminate both the riparian buffer minimums and the steep
slope ordinances that were in place. It is also possible that some of the flood plain
ordinances will be slashed by the board this year.
Frederick County uses a variety of regulatory tools to protect its watershed. There is a
long-term conservation plan in place, though it was designed mostly to protect agricultural
land and forestry. This plan has designated 50 acres for planting or protection. There is an
implementation and monitoring plan for watershed restoration and progress reports for
NPDES. Maryland requires low-impact development standards, which Frederick County
has implemented. A landowner stewardship program is in place that provides outreach to
homeowners to help maintain the watershed, a watershed stewardship program
recognizes individuals that have contributed to projects protecting the watershed, and a
program call Green Leaders encourages homeowners to complete environmentally friendly
projects. Frederick County has a needs and capabilities assessment plan, but it is
implemented on a permit specific basis to get the most limitation possible from the NPDES
permit. The county, through the green leader program provides a fertilizer management
program with a free soil test and the resources to interpret the results. There used to be a
set of voluntary best management practices related to the §319 program, but the ability to
use them has since been eliminated so resources could go to regulatory goals. Frederick
County has a host of other programs that were not specified, but are available through their
website.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 54 }
Frederick County has a number of informal relationships with municipalities in its county
and has regular meetings to help them understand the regulatory requirements. The
county also joined the stormwater management association with surrounding counties in
order to share data and coordinate programs. There is a volunteer monitoring program in
its pilot phase called the “Friends of Frederick County” that provided a smartphone
application that allows anyone to take pictures of pollution in the watersheds and report it
to the county. In addition to this the county sponsors a non-advocacy group made up of a
number of non-governmental organizations and provides this group space in the county
offices. Almost all of the collected data and relevant information can be gathered from a
quarterly newsletter sent out by the county and an annual report on watershed health. All
of this information is also available online with the Frederick County Watershed Alliance.
Garrett County
Garrett County has a few Tier I streams in the county which are mapped out in the
comprehensive plan. The county does not have a watershed management plan or a
monitoring and implementation plan. The county relies solely on volunteers to monitor
the watershed and provide the data to both the county and the state. The county does use a
few zoning tools, though these are only used for watershed protection to the extent
required by federal protection standards. There are steep slope ordinances for grades of
greater than 30%, setbacks of 50 feet for construction and roadways in order to keep the
flood plain clear, and buffer for sensitive areas. The county also uses bonuses to incentive
cluster development and there are some floating zones in the Deep Creek
watershed. Garrett County is very decentralized and does little zoning at the county level.
Garrett County has a few regulatory tools in use, though there does not seem to be anything
about the state standard and most of the work is done by municipalities. All of the current
conservation plans are geared towards protection of farm lands, and the only real county
regulation is focused on the protection of potable water sources. Garrett has a relationship
with Allegany County to carry out its emergency spill response. Outside of this there are no
relationships for watershed protection. There are a few volunteer organizations that
protect specific watersheds or teach monitoring techniques, but that is the extent of the
relationship with the county. Overall Garrett County does very little besides the lowest
requirements to protect its watershed because much of its land is subject to federal
protection and its population is very small.
Harford County
The county contains the Deer Creek watershed which is ranked the 3rd best stronghold
watershed by the State of Maryland. While the county does not have a countywide
watershed management plan, the County completed a plan for Deer Creek watershed in
2007. Due to the importance of Deer Creek for providing public drinking water, the County
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 55 }
utilizes a Water Source Protection District to protect community ground water systems.
The County utilizes two overlay districts, a Natural Resources District (NRD) and Water
Source Protection District (WSPD), primarily to protect drinking water. Land contained
within the NRD has 75-150 feet stream buffer requirements for streams draining less than
or more than 400 acres, respectively. The NRD also establishes a steep slope ordinance for
areas with a grade of at least 25% and greater than 40,000 square feet, in addition to
protections for non-tidal wetlands. While the county’s Critical Areas have restrictions on
impervious surface, the WSPD has a more stringent requirement of a 50% limitation on
impervious surface.
Although the County does not mandate cluster development through an ordinance, the
County does encourage clustering through a couple of means. First, the County's zoning
code allows for Conventional with Open Space (COS) development for certain residentially
zoned areas of at least 5 acres. Areas eligible for COS can have smaller lot sizes and
reduced setback requirements in exchange for providing extra open space. Second,
agricultural district land of at least 35 acres may pursue development under the
Conservation Development Standards, provided the developed area does not surpass 25%
of the total area and that the preserved area does not constitute less than 75% of the total
area. The county supports its agricultural land extensively and has a very active
agricultural preservation program, along with the Rural Legacy program supported by the
State. Furthermore, while the County hopes to expand its TDR program, it currently allows
for the transfer of density from one agricultural district parcel to a nearby parcel (within a
half mile) located in a rural residential or rural village area.
La Plata
La Plata was one of two towns surveyed. This town was one of the smallest localities
surveyed and did not have a full watershed within the township boundaries. Instead there
are portions of two separate watersheds, both of which are managed at the county level. La
Plata has no watershed management plan and, with the exception of sewage treatment
effluent, does not monitor the health of its watersheds, stating that these are handled at the
county level.
La Plata uses a range of zoning tools, though none of them are specifically meant to protect
the watershed. Instead, tools such as overlay districting and zoning tools are used to
increase flexibility in residential planning and encourage mixed use communities. Urban
growth boundaries and community redevelopment plans have a connection to stormwater
management, a requirement placed on localities by the state. Almost all of the regulatory
tools are focused on stormwater management, though the town does have a state required
conservation plan in place. However, by the town’s admission this plan needs
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 56 }
improvement and is spotty at best.
La Plata has some cooperative relationships with Charles County and Maryland, and also
cooperates with the Port Tobacco Conservancy, which is solely focused on the watershed
between Port Tobacco and the Potomac. La Plata also established a stormwater
management fee to provide for capital improvements to its stormwater program.
St. Mary’s County
Please see Page 28 for case study.
Worcester County
As the easternmost county in the state, Worcester County has miles of Atlantic Ocean
coastline and includes the well-known Assateague Island. The county is primarily rural
with the exception of Ocean City which attracts large numbers of tourists each year.
Starting in 2001 with Isle of Wight Bay, the County has completed or is in the process of
completing four Watershed Restoration Action Strategies designed to protect and restore
the targeted watershed. The County actively participates in TMDL developments and
completed a county-level TMDL Phase II WIP in 2011.
Similar to several other surveyed localities, the County largely depends on a non-profit
organization, Maryland Coastal, to conduct stream monitoring throughout the county.
While the County did not indicate having several of the surveyed ordinances and
regulations, the County identified three state programs which strengthen watershed
protection at the county level: Rural Legacy Program, Critical Area Program, and
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. The surveyed County official also indicated
that over 80% of the county is in resource protection zoning, and the county’s agricultural
and resource protection zoning is rather restrictive in terms of development.
The County does coordinate watershed management with surrounding localities and
focuses on building and maintaining these relationships. For example, a Rural Legacy Area
creek separates Worcester County and Somerset County, and the two counties share grant
funds to protect lands within that creek watershed. The surveyed county official also
indicated a strong relationship with the Coastal Bays Program, a non-profit partnership
consisting of federal, state, and local government entities (Worcester County included).
The Coastal Bays watershed makes up roughly one-third of Worcester County. Overall the
county has a number of active non-profit organizations and governmental agencies of
various levels collaborating to protect the watersheds.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 57 }
Pennsylvania Cameron County
Cameron County does not have a watershed management plan, though a conservation plan
funded by BCNR was implemented in 2010. The county does assess the health of its
watershed because of the interests of private citizens and non-profit
organizations. Cameron County did not use any of the listed zoning tools for anything other
than the regulation of flood plains. No zoning tools were used for watershed management
outside of this specific, state mandated, purpose.
Cameron County does not have a long-term conservation plan, though it does have a stream
rehabilitation program and fish habitat enhancement program. The county has engaged in
5 to 10 projects per year for the last 6 years. The county has a land stewardship program
and guidance on fertilizers through NRCS. These programs provide money and tax cuts to
landowners and farmers to protect wildlife habitats. There is an emergency spill response
plan in place that is handled through emergency management services. The county does
work with other counties that feed its watersheds in order to protect its watersheds, and
works with volunteers and two non-profit organizations: the Bucktail Watershed
Association and Trout Unlimited. The interview revealed that much of the work is done
through private citizens.
Centre County
Please see Page 31 for case study.
Cumberland County
The Cumberland County Conservation District official who responded to the survey
identified two exceptional quality streams and sixteen high quality streams within the
county. Cumberland County’s stormwater management plan was the closest thing the
county had to a countywide watershed management plan. There were, however,
conservation plans for three of the larger streams in the county that accompanied
watershed assessments. While the countywide stormwater management plan does not
account for how future landuse will impact healthy waters, the stream conservation plans
did look 5-10 years down the road to the additional impact of tourism and development.
Although the conservation district office does not do any water monitoring on a regular
basis, a number of watershed associations and a local college group within the county do
monitor stream health. Cumberland County has a planning department that reviews and
helps develop model ordinances, but for the most part, ordinances are developed and
passed at the municipality level. Each of the planning and zoning tools listed in the survey
were in place in at least one of the 33 municipalities, with the sole exception of floating
zones. The level of involvement and adoption of ordinances varied with the level of
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 58 }
development in each municipality—more rural municipalities being less likely to pass the
ordinances listed. With regard to regulatory and management tools, there are a number of
private land trust organization programs that purchase conservation easements, such as
the Central Pennsylvania conservancy. The county has done some land acquisitions as
well, through federal conservation easement programs under the Farm Bill. The
countywide stormwater ordinance mentioned above incorporates low-impact
development standards. A number of landowner stewardship and voluntary BMP programs
exist within the County. The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources assists farmers while the conservation district, through cost-share programs or
technical assistance, works with both farmers and developers to implement BMPs and
develop erosion and sediment control plans for new developments. The conservation
district does not overly influence developers, but they effect some revisions to the
developers’ plans. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture oversees the application
and use of fertilizers, but delegates responsibility to the conservation district to help
farmers develop nutrient management plans and perform inspections. Cumberland County
partners with Franklin County to offer programs on stormwater and erosion and sediment
control as well as trainings and workshops for contractors and engineers. Franklin County
also partners with municipalities to provide workshops for municipal engineers. The
County also benefits from the work of a number of watershed associations, fish and game
associations, a local college group, and a senior environmental corp.
Elk County
Elk County has no watershed management program, but one may be included in the
updated comprehensive plan, which should be coming soon. Monitoring is important to
this county and is done through both chemical, biological, and habitat
assessment. Macroinvertebrate sampling is being conducted and continuous monitoring is
done through satellite telemetry in the largest watersheds. Elk county does not use any of
the zoning tools listed for watershed management, though GIS is used for watershed
monitoring, and some set back requirements are used for flood plains.
Elk County has an extensive monitoring program and uses some low-impact development
standards in the comprehensive plans. The county also engages in quite a bit of education
and outreach in order to promote best management practices and fertilizer use
guidance. All but one of the municipalities has a source water protection plan, and most of
these encompass emergency spill response plans. Elk County does have a number of
relationships with watershed groups in the area, most of which are very active. Elk County
also works closely with the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. It is important to note that
only a part of the watershed in Elk County belongs to the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Lycoming County
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 59 }
As the largest county in Pennsylvania in terms of acreage, Lycoming County contains a
substantial number of watersheds and subwatersheds which drain into the Chesapeake
Bay. The county is predominantly rural and is one of many Pennsylvania counties now
facing the natural gas industry’s hydraulic fracturing activities. The County adopted a
Recreation, Parks, and Open Space/Greenway Plan in 2008 which specifically addressed
each of its healthy watersheds and the need to maintain their water quality.42 Lycoming
County also utilizes a growth corridor to target development in certain ideal areas, while
preserving the rural character and recreational appeal of other areas.
The County's Conservation District actively interacts with farm operators, especially
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), to assist them with installing riparian
buffers and stream bank fencing to minimize the runoff of non-point source pollution. Due
to the increasing activity from Marcellus Shale hydraulic fracturing, the surveyed county
official indicated a greater level of public awareness and concern for water quality issues
has emerged. A number of non-profit organizations exist at both the county and watershed
level to focus on advocacy, education, and water quality monitoring initiatives. Overall the
county seems well poised to maintain its healthy watersheds, likely due to the limited
amount of anticipated development and commitment to environmental quality from county
officials.
Mifflin County
The Mifflin County Conservation District Official that responded to the survey stated
that two-thirds of the county’s streams were high value, though none were exceptional
value, as defined by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Mifflin County also had 6
Class A wild trout streams, as identified by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.
None of the municipalities within Mifflin County had adopted a watershed management
plan. Despite being required to adopt an Act 167 stormwater management plan, only 5
of the 15 municipalities had adopted the model 167 plan that the county developed in
2010. The Act 167 plans that were adopted, however, do consider the impacts of future
landuse. Little regular assessment of the health of the community watersheds occurs in
Mifflin County; Pennsylvania DEP is supposed to regularly monitor watersheds, but they
do not have the manpower or money.
Of the 15 municipalities about half use zoning districts and have special conservation
zoning areas around streams and wetlands. The more developed municipalities,
approximately half, have some kind of impervious cover limits. These municipalities
also tend to be more progressive—rural municipalities do not consider watershed
42 Lycoming County Planning Commission, Lycoming County Recreation, Parks, and Open Space/Greenway Plan, Lycoming County Government, 2008.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 60 }
management an issue. Although no municipalities have explicit steep slope ordinances,
most of the subdivision and subdevelopment ordinances put restrictions in the steeper
slope areas. The municipalities must also comply with the state riparian buffer
minimums. The Mifflin County Conservation District has a GIS inventory of water
quality, but it is piecemeal and mostly within the impaired watersheds. While there are
no urban growth boundaries or infill efforts, one municipality within the county does
have open space requirements akin to a cluster development ordinance. Finally, the
stormwater ordinances take into account the location of the watersheds. With regard to
regulatory and management programs, Mifflin County participates in farmland
preservation programs, placing conservation easements on certain farmland, which are
then protected in perpetuity. Generally one farm is selected per year, and two
assessments are done—and agriculture value and market value assessment—and the
difference between the two becomes the easement value, which is offered to the
farmer. Currently, there are 20 farms in the program. The County’s Act 167 stormwater
plan incorporates low-impact development standards. There are a number of voluntary
BMP programs in the agricultural sector, particularly through the U.S.D.A.’s Section 319
program that has funneled a lot of money since the TMDL was imposed. With the
exception of the Juniata watershed organization, most work stops at the county line and
there is little coordination with surrounding localities. The Juniata Clean Water
Partnership and the local Trout Unlimited chapter are the primary community
stewardship organizations operating within the county.
Tioga County
As a rural, sparsely populated county, Tioga County shares many of its characteristics with
other counties in our sample. The County does not utilize any of the Watershed
Management, Zoning Ordinances, or Development Management policies discussed in this
report. Within the County's 2005 Comprehensive Plan, employment opportunities
constituted the county's top priority for the future, but natural resource protection,
farmland/open space preservation, and watershed planning were listed as 3rd, 4th, and
14th priorities, respectively.43 While the county may not appear to face substantial
residential or commercial development which could threaten watershed health, the natural
gas industry is quickly becoming a driver for the local economy and could potentially
threaten water quality. The surveyed county official did indicate the presence of a source
water protection coalition which is working to get drinking water suppliers across county
boundaries to work together. This could become particularly important as the natural gas
industry continues to expand and place demands on local water supplies.
Union County
43 Tioga County Government, "Comprehensive Plan," 2005, 4-28.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 61 }
The Union County Conservation District reports 12 watersheds within the area, of which
5 are considered to be high quality and one is considered to be of exceptional value.
Union County has adopted a watershed work plan which is updated annually and
generally deals with the rehabilitation and maintenance of unhealthy watersheds.
Several plans enacting erosion and sediment control have also been written. Some tools
used include zoning districts, impervious cover limits, watershed based zoning, growth
boundaries, and protection of land near watersheds. In accordance with their work
plan, several of the watersheds within Union County are assessed regularly. Union
County offers an agricultural conservation easement program in order to encourage
farmers to be conscious of waters surrounding their land. Union county also has both
voluntary BMPs and an emergency spill response plan, though the latter is handled by a
different department. A no-till conversion program has also been implemented, which
compensates landowners for trying a no-till solution to growing crops. As additional
help, farmers are offered assistance with improving their facilities and operations to
better prevent nutrient runoff which may affect nearby watersheds.
Community involvement within the district is seen as important, with many education
outreach programs run by both Union County and the community group Lower Penns
Creek Watershed Association. In combination with this group, workshops and events are
put on annually in order to promote awareness of issues regarding watershed
preservation. The Lower Penns Creek Watershed Association also functions within Snyder
County, which shares some watersheds with Union County.
Virginia Fairfax County
Please see Page 34 for case study.
Fauquier County
The Fauquier County community development official who responded to the survey could
identify one stream that met the state’s definition of a healthy watershed. The county has
never developed a watershed management plan, but is in the process of hiring an
environmental planner who will presumably do so. The County primarily looks to the state
to assess watershed health, with the exception of Goose Creek, which is assessed by the
Goose Creek Watershed Association. With regard to planning and zoning tools, Fauquier
County does not permit hardscaping of areas in the floodplain and has an ordinance
requiring developers to maintain natural drainage to the extent possible. The County
attempted to pass a steep slope ordinance and an overlay district that would protect
surface water, but these met with stiff public opposition. The County has also attempted to
monitor groundwater flow and quality, but this process halted when the economy
soured. The County does, however maintain a GIS-Based watershed
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 62 }
inventory. Furthermore, infill and community redevelopment are encouraged by the
boundaries of the utility service districts and the County also has a cluster development
ordinance for its rural areas—all development has to be clustered on 15 percent of the site
with the remaining left as open space. Finally, the County has an aggressive erosion and
sediment control program through its conservation district. Although the County does not
have a significant number of planning and zoning tools in place, when evaluating a special
exemption or re-zoning exemption, they do attempt to get more than they could from a
standard regulatory standpoint. The County generally takes a collaborative rather than
regulatory approach, as officials have found this more effective.
The County utilizes a number of regulatory and management programs to protect its
healthy watersheds. First, 25 percent of the county is under some kind of conservation
easement—the most in the state. The County does not have a TDR program, as it simply
purchases the rights rather than transferring them to others. The new state stormwater
regulations have moved the County toward LID practices, such as environmental site
design, localized capture and treatment of stormwater, rain gardens, and bio retention
swales. John Marshall Soil and Water Conservation District, which operates solely in
Fauquier County, has an active voluntary BMP program and offers guidance on the use of
fertilizers and pesticides. For example, the Conservation District has a cost-share program
through which they share in the cost of fencing if the farmers keep their cows out of the
streams, reestablishing the riparian buffer. Fauquier County does not partner with
surrounding localities but it does participate with the Rappahannock Rapidan Regional
Commission.
Loudoun County
Loudoun County offered an interesting comparison to the rapidly urbanizing Fairfax
County, given Loudoun’s expanding growth but desire to maintain its rural character.
Using a grant from the EPA, Loudoun County completed in 2008 a watershed management
plan which provides recommendations for how the County will protect and improve its
watershed and water resources. As part of developing the watershed management plan,
the County used a subwatershed assessment which provided scores of every
subwatershed, and those within the lowest quartile (indicating the highest levels of water
quality) were categorized in a focus area to maintain its health. The scoring metrics
incorporated estimations of future land use. The county’s watershed management plan
repeatedly references the detrimental effects on watershed health caused by high levels of
impervious surface, but the County has not adopted any ordinances to limit impervious
surface.
Additionally, the County has an open space easement program which offers tax incentives
to landowners who place their property under easement. The County, in collaboration
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 63 }
with academic, consulting, and citizen groups, regularly conducts water quality
assessments and stream monitoring. A number of public and private groups also
participate in VDCR's Adopt-A-Stream Program which utilizes citizens to collect litter along
and in the county’s waterways.
Rappahannock County
Rappahannock County offered an intriguing insight into a rather rural county wedged
between pockets of development and with only increased development to come. The
County largely depends on the non-profit organization Rappahannock Friends and Lovers
of Our Watershed (RappFLOW) to conduct a variety of water quality monitoring and
evaluation programs. Specifically, the surveyed county official noted that RappFLOW was
instrumental in the water supply plan completed in 2011. The County has adopted a
stormwater ordinance in order to address lengthy driveways created for residential
development on large parcels. Any proposed linear development project (e.g. driveway)
exceeding 1,000 feet in length and 10% grade (at any point) must provide engineering and
stormwater management plans to minimize erosion and stormwater runoff.44
The county began offering a purchase of development rights (PDR) program in 2006, but as
of January 6, 2011, the program only protected 449 acres through the program45. The
PDR program receives funding from private donations, rollback taxes from use-value
taxation, and the state government matching funding46. Despite the lack of participation in
incentives for acquiring conservation easements, 93% of county’s land area is either in
agricultural or conservation zoning which substantially restricts development. Beyond the
zoning restrictions, the County uses funding from a private foundation to implement a cost-
share program that matches funds for property owners that implement measures to keep
cattle out the streams. The county overall does not have a strong need for restrictive
development regulations given the overwhelming rural and agricultural character of the
county. County officials do seem cognizant of watershed issues and have the benefit of a
strong, well-organized non-profit organization contributing to the protection of water
quality.
Richmond County
Richmond County, the southernmost county in our sample, is the geographically smallest
and second least populated of our Virginia counties. The county also has the lowest median
household income ($42,181) of our Virginia counties.47 The county contains a large
portion of the 8,191-acre Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, a refuge
44 § 145-20 of County Code 45 http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/preservation/pdf/rappahannock-pdr.pdf 46 http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/preservation/pdf/rappahannock-pdr.pdf 47 U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 64 }
that seeks to protect a total of 20,000 acres along the Rappahannock River and its primary
tributaries. Land use within the county is predominantly agricultural with pockets of
conservation areas and development.48
Within the 2011 Comprehensive Plan, the County highlighted the classification of four
natural corridors. These natural corridors contain high levels of biodiversity and play a
critical role in reducing non-point source pollution for the County. As a result of the
natural corridor classification, proposed development in these corridors should seek to
minimize its environmental impact and provide impact assessments pertaining to any
potential degradation from the proposed development. The County overall incorporates a
number of fairly standard ordinances and policy recommendations regarding watershed
and environmental protection. The surveyed county official indicated that the County
requires 100-foot buffers from tidal waters but that the County is fairly generous in
approving variances from the requirement. As we’ve found with other rural counties, the
lack of rapidly encroaching development doesn’t necessitate a particularly stringent set of
environmental protection regulations beyond state and federal requirements.
Shenandoah County
The Shenandoah County Planning and Zoning official who responded to the survey
identified two healthy streams under INSTAR’s definition. As part of the Chesapeake Bay
TMDL requirements, the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission developed a
watershed management plan in February of 2012. The plan provides the basis for
programs to come, such as the stormwater management plan the County is in the process
of adopting. The comprehensive plan, the goal of which is to remain a rural, agricultural
sector county, has a chapter on water, which the watershed management plan follows. The
watershed management plan addresses future land use and considers where the County
should be, primary focus being to keep the rural areas of the County open and channel
development to the towns. Although the local government does not actively survey and
assess watershed health, the DEQ regional office does each year and a number of
watershed associations and one local school monitor water quality as well.
Shenandoah County implements a number of planning and zoning tools to protect its
healthy watersheds. The County has a floodplain ordinance in place and a riparian buffer
ordinance, though there is some flexibility for modification intended to protect individual
property owners’ autonomy. Shenandoah County also employs impervious cover limits in
the form of building coverage limits, but not with regard to pavement or other impervious
surface coverage. The County also benefits from a GIS-based watershed inventory. The
County limits growth by limiting public water and sewer provision and through a cluster
48 http://www.fws.gov/northeast/rappahannock/
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 65 }
development ordinance in the rural areas. The County also incentivizes clustering by
allowing smaller lots for homes if 80 percent of a development remains open
space. Finally, the County’s erosion and sediment control ordinance contributes to the
effort to maintain its healthy watersheds.
With regard to regulatory and management programs, the County implements a
conservation easement program through which the easement authority leverages state and
federal funding and holds agricultural and other easements as land trusts—currently 5,000
acres are under conservation easement. Through the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, the County is
developing an implementation and monitoring plan that they will use to provide
deliverables to the state. While there is no TDR on the books, Frederick County to the
North has implemented a TDR program and Shenandoah County is waiting to see how well
it is used and how useful it proves to be. The County has LID standards in place through its
development ordinances. Through the soil and water conservation district, voluntary
BMPs are put in place and benefit from a lot of participation, which is a good indicator that
farmers in the County are sensitive to their impact—this is particularly important because
the County is mostly agricultural land. The conservation district also provides guidance to
farmers on the application and use of fertilizer and pesticides. Shenandoah County
partners with surrounding counties through the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional
Commission, a planning district that the counties pay into and that plays a big role in the
developing grants to help with stormwater management and identify where shared
resources can be utilized. Testing efficiency of shared resources—such as inspectors and
engineers—is currently a significant priority. There are also a number of community
stewardship programs, including the Shenandoah Riverkeeper group, a trout unlimited
chapter, Friends of the North Fork, and a Water Resources Advisory Committee (a quasi-
governmental group overseen by the planning and zoning office but comprised of members
of the planning commission and board of supervisors that plays a significant advisory role).
Spotsylvania County
Spotsylvania County reported two healthy watersheds within the county boundaries.
According to their comprehensive plan, Spotsylvania County follows regulations that relate
to watershed management that have been in implementation in their current form since
2008. Though not much information was provided, the county regulations within the
comprehensive plan include zoning districts, impervious cover limits, watershed-based
zoning, a steep slope ordinance, riparian buffer requirements, infill redevelopment, growth
boundaries, and cluster ordinances. The county also utilizes GIS software to maintain an
inventory of its watersheds.
The county does have a TDR program, as well as LID standards, implementation and
monitoring plan, and long-term conservation protection programs. The Friends of the
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 66 }
Rappahannock non-profit organization has assisted the County with watershed
assessments, specifically of the Rappahannock River Watershed.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 67 }
APPENDIX IV: DATA OUTPUT TABLES Table 5. Summary Statistics
Variable Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
Average B-IBI Index Score
= avgbibi 38.37 13.21 16.68 60.62
Percent of Watersheds with
Good or Excellent B-IBI
Index Scores
= goodexcbibi
51.77% 37.45% 0.00% 100.00%
Percent of Watersheds with
Fair, Good, or Excellent B-
IBI Index Scores
= fairtoexcbibi
84.05% 25.33% 25.00% 100.00%
Persons per Square Mile
= personssqmi 322.76 599.58 12.80 2,766.80
Percent of Population 25
Years or Older with
Bachelor’s Degree or Higher
= bachelorshghr
28.29% 12.94% 9.80% 58.00%
Median Household Income
= medianhhinc $63,947 $23,228 $37,747 $115,574
Percent of Watershed
Management Policies In
Effect
= wtrdsmgmt
33.75% 24.70% 0.00% 75.00%
Percent of Zoning
Ordinances In Effect
= zoningords
50.83% 25.64% 0.00% 83.33%
Percent of Development
Management In Effect
= devmgmt
51.25% 32.92% 0.00% 100.00%
Percent of Natural
Resources Protection
Policies In Effect
= natrsrcsprot
66.25% 28.42% 0.00% 100.00%
Number of observations: 20
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 68 }
Table 6. Correlation Coefficients
Policy
Category Local Policies
Average B-
IBI Index
Score
Good or
Excellent
Watersheds
Fair to
Excellent
Watersheds
Wa
ters
he
d
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
GIS-based Watershed Inventory -0.49 -0.33 -0.37
Needs and Capabilities Assessment -0.01 0.02 -0.15
Water Quality Monitoring and
Assessment -0.10 -0.15 -0.12
Watershed Management Plan -0.43 -0.42 -0.62*
Watershed-Based Zoning 0.12 0.04 0.07
Zo
nin
g O
rdin
an
ces
Cluster Development Ordinance -0.20 -0.16 -0.08
Floating Zones 0.35 0.38 0.22
Impervious Cover Limits -0.17 -0.03 -0.11
Overlay/ Special Use Zoning
Districts -0.14 -0.02 -0.07
Riparian Buffer Limits -0.19 -0.21 0.06
Steep Slope Ordinance 0.14 0.18 0.28
De
ve
lop
me
nt
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
Infill and Community
Redevelopment -0.14 -0.10 -0.19
Low-Impact Development
Standards -0.60* -0.44 -0.37
Transfer of Development Rights -0.04 0.02 -0.11
Urban Growth Boundaries -0.08 -0.13 -0.08
Na
tura
l R
eso
urc
es
Pro
tect
ion
Special Protection of Lands
Adjacent to Water 0.00 -0.16 -0.13
Landowner Stewardship Programs -0.41 -0.38 -0.56
Long-term Conservation Programs -0.46 -0.36 -0.32
Voluntary Best Management
Practices 0.26 0.38 0.15
* Statistically significant correlation
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 69 }
Table 7. OLS Regression Results for Watershed Health Measures
Variable
Average B-IBI
Index Score
Good or
Excellent
Watersheds
Fair to Excellent
Watersheds
Persons per
Square Mile
-0.007876
(0.31)
-0.000262
(0.21)
-0.000011
(0.93)
Bachelor’s
Degree or
Higher
-39.73856
(0.40
-1.33912
(0.28)
-1.642588
(0.04)**
Median
Household
Income
0.000119
(0.68)
0.000006
(0.40)
0.000005
(0.26)
Watershed
Management
-1.563700
(0.94)
-0.181333
(0.74)
-0.036432
(0.91)
Zoning
Ordinances
12.58814
(0.48)
0.543738
(0.26)
0.480166
(0.10)*
Development
Management
-26.29020
(0.17)
-0.924759
(0.08)*
-0.288006
(0.33)
Natural
Resources
Protection
19.27137
(0.33)
0.797206
(0.14)
-0.144837
(0.63)
** Significant at 5% level; * Significant at 10% level
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 70 }
REFERENCES 1. Cappiella, Karen, Lauren Lasher, Neely Law, Chris Swann. Watershed Planning Needs
Survey of Coastal Plain Communities. Technical memorandum, Center for Watershed Protection, 2008.
2. Cappiella, Karen, Emily Corwin, Lauren Lasher, Tom Schueler, Chris Swann, Jennifer Tomlinson, Rebecca Winer, and Tiffany Wright. A User Guide to Watershed Planning in Maryland. Center for Watershed Protection. 2005. www.mde.state.md.us/programs/ResearchCenter/ReportsandPublications/WaterPublications/Documents/www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/UserGuide_WatershedPlanning.pdf.
3. Center for Watershed Protection. "Land Use Planning Fact Sheet: Watershed Based Zoning." Stormwater Manager's Resource Center. http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Assorted%20Fact%20Sheets/Tool1_Planning/WatershedBasedZoning.htm.
4. Charles County Government. Charles County Zoning Regulations Chapter 297. 2008. http://www.charlescounty.org/webdocs/pgm/publications/planning/zoning_ord%202008.pdf.
5. Chesapeake Bay Program. "Health of Freshwater Streams in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed." www.chesapeakebay.net/indicators/indicator/health_of_freshwater_streams_in_the_chesapeake_bay_watershed.
6. Chesapeake Bay Program. "Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009." 2009. www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/cbp_505131.pdf.
7. Ciminelli, Jennifer, Greg Garman Rick Hill, Kim Hodge, Stephen McIninch, Paula Neely, and Chip Rice. Healthy Waters. Report, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/stormwater_management/documents/healthywatersbook.pdf.
8. Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future. Stream Redesignation Handbook. 2009. www.pennfuture.org/UserFiles/PDFs/PennFutureStreamHndbk09.pdf.
9. Delaware Riverkeeper Network. Protecting Streams in Pennsylvania: A Resource for Municipal Officials. 2007. www.delawareriverkeeper.org/pdf/Protecting%20Streams%20in%20PA.pdf.
10. Fairfax County Stormwater Planning Division. 2011 Fairfax County Stormwater Status Report. Fairfax County Government, 2011. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpwes/publications/stormwater/2011_stormwater_status_report.pdf.
11. Frederick County Government. Chesapeake Bay TMDL Analysis for Frederick County, Maryland, 2012. www.frederickcountymd.gov/documents/6616/6617/TMDL%20Local%20Area%20Plan%20for%20Frederick%20County%2007162012_201209090950551994.pdf.
12. Friends of the Rappahannock, James River Association, Potomac Conservancy. Promoting Low Impact Development in Virginia: A Review and Assessment of Nontidal
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 71 }
County Codes and Ordinances. 2012. http://www.jamesriverassociation.org/what-we-do/va-scorecard-final-report.pdf.
13. Lycoming County Planning Commission. Lycoming County Recreation, Parks, and Open Space/Greenway Plan. Lycoming County Government, 2008. http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/brc/greenways/Plans/Lycoming.pdf.
14. "Maryland General Act §4-201.", http://mlis.state.md.us/asp/web_statutes.asp?gen&4-201.
15. Maryland Department of the Environment. "Water Quality Standards." www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/Water%20Quality%20Standards/Pages/programs/waterprograms/tmdl/wqstandards/index.aspx.
16. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. “Watersheds of Greatest Importance for the Preservation of Maryland’s Aquatic Biodiversity.” www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pdfs/StrongholdFactSheet.pdf.
17. Miller, James et. al. “Biodiversity Conservation in Local Planning.” Conservation Biology 23, no.1 (2008): 53-63. www.millerlab.nres.uiuc.edu/pdfs/Biodiversity%20conservation%20in%20local%20planning.pdf.
18. Molchany, David. “Building a Sustainable Future – Energy Efficient Fairfax County.” Presentation, Fairfax County Government, 2012. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/living/environment/energy/building-a-sustainable-future.pdf.
19. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 1978 Stormwater Management Act 167. 2011. http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Watershed%20Management/WatershedPortalFiles/StormwaterManagement/167RegionReport.pdf.
20. Pennsylvania Code. “§ 102.14 Riparian Buffer Requirements.” www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter102/s102.14.html.
21. Prince William Conservation Alliance. "The Occoquan Reservoir." http://www.pwconserve.org/issues/occoquan/quickfacts.htm.
22. Richmond County Government. Comprehensive Plan Update. 2011. http://www.co.richmond.va.us/9.1.11CompPlan_merged.pdf.
23. Tioga County Government. "Comprehensive Plan." 2005. http://www.tiogacountypa.us/Departments/Planning_Commission/Documents/Tioga_Co._Comprehensive_Plan_2005.pdf.
24. U.S. Census Bureau. "2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates." www.factfinder2.census.gov.
25. U.S. Census Bureau. “State & County QuickFacts.” 2010. http://quickfacts.census.gov.
26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Healthy Watersheds News.” EPA Healthy Watersheds, Summer 2012. water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/watershed/upload/hwnews12-2.pdf.
27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Healthy Watersheds Initiative: National Framework and Action Plan. 2011. www.water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/watershed/upload/hwi_action_plan.pdf.
28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Quality Scorecard. 2009. http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/2009_1208_wq_scorecard.pdf.
TRACKING HEALTHY WATERS PROTECTIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
{ 72 }
29. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. "Greenways." www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational_planning/greenway.shtml.
30. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. "Riparian Buffers." www.dcr.virginia.gov/stormwater_management/ripbuff.shtml.
31. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Checklist for Advisory Review of Local Ordinances. Word document, 2009. http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/stormwater_management/documents/checklist_adv.doc.
32. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. "Water Quality Monitoring Programs." http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQualityMonitoring.aspx.